Nikon D40 vs Nikon D40X

[tomas_garcia_moreno]

I you had to buy one of these cameras, which would you choose. Is it really worth it the new D40X against

the D40?

[simon_hickie1]

10mp gives you more cropping capability; 6mp gives you better high ISO noise. A D50 would let you meter with non-AFS lenses, but it's bigger. Pricewise the D40X is too close to the D80 which is a significantly more capable camera.

[elliot1]

The real difference is in flash shutter speed. If you need fast flash sync, stick with the d40 (1/500 vs 1/200).

 

If you are on a budget, stick with the d40. You can get an extra lens and/or flash (sb-400) for the difference.

 

There is virtually no difference in picture quality from 6mp to 10mp (even if you enlarge, even if you crop - and yes, I have tested this myself).

 

The smaller viewfinder and smaller screen display of the d50 make the d40 a much better choice for you unless you need to use non-AFS lenses, in which case I would suggest you get a d80.

 

Either way, you get a great camera! Have fun.

[ShunCheung]

First of all, the D40x is not even on the market yet. The are short reviews on pre-production models, but it is too early to draw any definitive conclusion.

 

Essentially the primary difference between the D40 and D40x is 6MP vs. 10MP. If you make a lot of large prints, you should see somewhat better results from 10MP.

 

BTW, all Nikon DSLRs can meter with all Nikon AF lenses, AF-S or not. The entire D40 family cannot drive non AF-S lenses to AF while at this point, all other Nikon DSLR outside of the D40 family can drive AF-S and non AF-S AF lenses to AF.

[tomas_garcia_moreno]

thanks for your comments...however, I happen to have also a good deal for a D50 but with

Sigma lenses 18-50mm and 55-200mm, does it sound interesting instead?

[ShunCheung]

Tomas, the D50 provides a very small viewfinder image as Elliot points out. Some people will immediately reject the D50 for that one reason while some other people would look into that viewfinder and ask "what is the problem?"

 

The only way to find out whether that is a problem for you is to inspect a D50 yourself. The D40 has a slightly better viewfinder but IMO, it is not that great either.

 

Otherwise, the D40 is slightly newer technology (by 1.5 years) while the D50 has an in-body AF motor to drive non-AF-S AF lenses while the entire D40 family does not have that capability.

 

Eventually, it'll be your personal decision.

[tomas_garcia_moreno]

thank you Shun, I'll keep that in mind

[erling]

I have just done a quick run around the viewfinder specs:

 

D40/40x: 0.80 x magnification (approx)

 

D50: 0.75 x

 

D80: 0.94 x

 

D200: 0.94 x

 

All have approx 95% frame coverage.

[photo5]

I would choose the D40, it's $200 less, you can put that into a lens or two. The internal image processing in the D40 is much improved over the D50/D70 series cameras. Unless you know that you absolutely need the extra resolution of the D40x, I would go for the D40. I chose the D80 to upgrade to from the D70s, not only for the added resolution, but for the greatly increased image processing as the D70s suffered from some pretty bad high frequency noise that limited the resolution somewhat.

 

Dave

[ericreagan]

I just made this decision. It was easy for me, I got the D40 for many of the reasons mentioned above. 1/500s flash sync, $250 savings (found it on sale for $550), and I don't buy the megapixel myth. Oh yeah, and I'm already shooting, instead of waiting for the D40x to become available. To add fuel to the fire, check out Ken Rockwell's site for a good synopsis of the two.

 

Cheers!

[tonybeach]

Eric said:

 

"...I don't buy the megapixel myth."

 

My reply:

 

What myth? It's more resolution, that allows you to print larger or crop more. If you don't need it than you don't need it; however, I own the D70 and the D200, and I have clearly seen the difference. I think you have been swallowing too much of the Ken Rockwell myth, taking his advice is the fastest way I can think of to ruin your photos (like using overcooked JPEG's and not saving your images in RAW for instance).

 

Have fun with your new camera, I'm sure it's a fine tool.

[tomas_garcia_moreno]

thank you all for your advice

[tim_knight]

Take a second look at a new D50 with the 18-70 lens and later add the nikon 50/1.8 lens. The D50 is a great camera and you can build up your lens inventory without any restrictions. I have the above glass and love the pictures I get with both. Remember you can not buy fast prime lens to use on the D40.

[ilkka_nissila]

I noticed a big difference in sharpness between D70 and D200, which is in most cases obvious in 8x12 inch prints. I am using many of Nikon's best optics though. If you use a 18-55 mm with the 55-200 at wide apertures then it might not be of any advantage to have 10 MP.

 

Personally, that was the biggest surprise to me when I got the D200, how much the difference in picture quality between these two cameras turned out to be.

 

There is no megapixel myth in DSLRs. You get better quality with newer, higher MP cameras. In compact cameras the megapixel count may be excessive since the optics can't deal with the pixel counts, and the noise goes up in the small sensors.

[dan park]

Remember that the D40/d4x do not support a wide range of nikons older AF glass. Out of the three nikon f2.8 zooms that I own 20-35, 35-70, 80-200 the D40(s) would not be able to use any of them but my D50 uses them just fine. If you are sticking to the newer AFS lenses then the D40 sounds like a good deal but if you plan on buying any of theses older lenses on the used market then find a nice D50.

 

Definitely check out the D50 before you buy it. My pet peeves are small viewfinder (though usable) and only one level of zoom in the lcd. Other than that the camera is great.

[tomas_garcia_moreno]

that's what I need, opinion exchange...I have a Nikkor 35-135mm lens on my older N8008s

that would be useless on a D40 or D40X I suppose, while useful on the D50, and basically I

am not professional but I do like a lot doing photo. thanks again

[tomas_garcia_moreno]

what about Sigma lenses, anyone has experience with them?

[ShunCheung]

Just to clarify, older AF but not AF-S (and not AF-I) lenses are not "useless" on the D40 and D40x. You'll lose AF capability, but they will still meter and capture images. Today, a lot of people still focus manually and even use manual-focus lenses on their DSLRs.

 

If you have older AF-D 35-135mm or 20-35mm zooms, their usefulness on DSLRs are kind of limited anyway because of the crop factor.

 

Anyway, think through the pros and cons for your individual case. The reason that Nikon makes a D40, a D40x and a D80 today is that they meet different needs. If there is one model that is "best" for everybody, there would be no need for the other ones.

[ericreagan]

"What myth? It's more resolution, that allows you to print larger or crop more."

 

I understand that there's certainly more resolution in a 10MP vs. a 6MP camera. I'm just not jumping on the MP marketing hype. If you don't recognize the marketing hype then you're really missing my point. I've seen many poster sized prints from 6MP cameras that look fantastic. That said, most folks in the market for a D40 or D40x aren't looking to enlarge to poster sized. I would imagine the vast majority of D40x shoppers are consumers that want a "good" camera and will likely print an abundance of 4x6 prints. They'll buy a D40x just because somebody at Best Buy tells them 10MP is better than 6MP. Really? What about noise? Flash sync? Dynamic range? There's more to an image sensor than resolution.

 

I very rarely go above 8x10. When I have gone to poster-sized, my 8MP files have done just fine and I don't know that having 2MP more would make a significant, if any, difference. FYI, I shoot RAW exclusively. I made no reference to Ken Rockwell other than the comparison between the D40 and D40x. By no means would I recommend that everyone should shoot in JPEG. Sorry if you misunderstood.

 

Cheers!

[tonybeach]

Eric said:

 

"Sorry if you misunderstood."

 

My reply:

 

First, everything Ken Rockwell says is prima facie suspect. The "megapixel myth" happens to be featured prominently in the D40 v. D40x review he does. Your point about what most people who buy consumer cameras happens to correlate with the audience Ken Rockwell is targeting, which are casual or non-serious photographers (more accurately, they are picture takers). Ironically, that crowd is even more likely to crop their shots than pros and serious amateurs are.

 

Now I have a D200 and two D70 cameras. I can tell you that I never use my D70 cameras anymore. I do not worry about flash sync because I have FP flash fill and even when the shutter speed is slower the flash itself provides most of the exposure and it only lasts thousandths of a second. There is no more DR in the D70 cameras, no less noise (it is less per pixel, but has to be enlarged more and therefore equals out), and the quality of my D200 images are better than my D70 images even when I crop the D200 images to 6MP.

 

Finally, you own an 8MP Canon Rebel (the camera you were referring to in your previous post), which is a camera that specifically marketed itself as an upgrade to the 6MP cameras. Ironically, that was a smaller upgrade than 10MP is from 6MP, which is what we are talking about here. I have seen the difference megapixels make with the glass I use -- ironically, Ken Rockwell doesn't use glass that's very good so it doesn't surprise me that he thinks more megapixels are a myth.

[tomas_garcia_moreno]

thanks for your input, after some feedback and research I have noticed it has some

advantages going for a D40 than a D50 respecting that budget

[brooks_lester]

The D40 and D40X will meter with non-AF-S lenses. What he may be referring to is that the

D40 series won't auto focus with non-AF-S lenses. If you're used to manually focussing, it's

not necessarily a big deal, but the D40's don't have split prism viewfinders. You'll have to rely

on your vision and the rangefinder focus lock confirmation LED.

 

Additionally, the first round of reviews of both the D80 and D40X show that they are in fact

less noisy chips than the D50/D70(s) chips. More megapixels doesn't necessarily mean more

noise if the bigger chips are newer and chip/image processing has been improved in terms of

noise.

[tomas_garcia_moreno]

thanks for the comments

[ice_box]

I plan to buy a D40 pretty soon. Here are my reasons:

 

I don't need extra pixels (6 mp would do just fine)

 

The af motor - well d40 and d40x are targeted to dslr beginners. It's not likely that an old time photographer who has older lenses would be interested in the newbie targeted, D40. So my D40 will be my first SLR and so I will buy compatible lenses. And if I get a good deal on a second hand non af-s lens (maybe a macro) - well some manual af didn't kill anybody (after all full manual control is one of the things I really miss with my compact digital).

 

And a last thing - which I understood from a review - so it might be wrong: the camera still acknowledges "focus ok" you just have to find it :) if you use non af-s lenses.

[gerard p]

I had a D1x, now own a D200 (a better camera for less than half the price), and just decided for the D40 rather than D40x as my second camera.

 

Why? Because I can get the D40 with 18-55 mm. lens (pretty decent according to most reviewers) for $477 against $562 for the D40x body alone. Because 6 Mp. is good enough for pre press, and more than good enough for web and DTP. I do know very, very few people who own A3 sized printers, or even then print larger than A4 or letter. 6 Mp. is more than plenty for that.

 

I like the idea of a small, compact camera with a light lens, and if I want better optics, I can always stick my AF-S 17-35mm. f/2.8D or HSM 100-300 f/4D Sigma on it. My AF 35-70 f/2.8D Nikkor and 12-24 f/4G Tokina won't autofocus, but everything else is supposed to work just hunky dory.

 

As for the Mp. hype: it's not a hype. Digicams, as most other digital devices, will keep jumping in capacity & capability roughly every 24 months, for more or less the same price.

For me, I'm living a 48 months upgrade cycle, and am waiting for the Nikon DXXX to be full frame, somewhere between 16 & 18 mp. and within the D200 price bracket, for my last & final upgrade from the D200. With that one I will stick till the day I die...

 

As for the Ken Rockwell hype; couldn't agree more that he cannot be taken seriously. Unfortunately, many newbies think he should be.