Would it be an upgrade to go from D70 to D40x

[heartyfisher]

I should be doing other things like "processing" some pictures. But You know how

the mind wonders... anyway I have a D70 and am fairly happy with it (won several

weekly local club comps lately). But have contemplated getting a D80 or a D200

to upgrade but there is a new D200 on the horizon and I dont want to get the

D200 only to have to get the next version of the D200 in a few months time. So I

was thinking of getting the D40x to up the Megapixels. well besides the 6M to

10M is there other features thats really an upgrade?

 

I am also thinking of getting some f2.8 lenses. I have the 18-200VR which is a

great holiday lens and walk about lens. I just thought that the 18-200vr would

be great on the D40X being so light. (A bit like a glorified Snappy?) that I can

use into the future. while I build my more serious system around the new

camera(next D200) and F2.8 lenses.. Thinking of investigating slide photography

too. (yes got bitten by the photography bug)

 

So any openions and ramblings are most welcome. just dont mention canon mK3. :-)

[john schroeder]

NO it is not. The D40x only exists to compete directly with the Rebel XTi. In my opinion the D40 has better image quality at high ISO's. You can only print marginally larger with a 10 mpxl camera compared to a 6mpxl camera. The D40x is a camera for people who believe Canon's marketing that more megapixels will make you a better photographer. If you want to upgrade then look at the D80 or D200. I would ask yourself what is wrong with your D70. What is the D70 not doing that you feel you need? If you just want to spend money (Nikon acquisition syndrome) then buy lenses.

[photo5]

I agree, it's not really an upgrade. I would say the D80 is an upgrade from the D70s. I had the D70s and now have a D80 and it's been a super camera for me.

 

Dave

[dave_petley2]

I would say D200 is an upgrade not D80 the d80 is not an super camera

[juanjo_viagran]

If you want to feel the up-grade from your D70 I'm with Dave, D200.

I'm also planing on upgrading my D70 and the ONLY consideration is the D200 (D2X WAY out of budget ;)

[heartyfisher]

Dave ? ohh the second Dave...

[robert_hooper1]

The D40x viewfinder is slightly improved over the D70 (0.8x as apposed to 0.75x), but this is not a significant improvement in my opinion. The D40x has slower flash sink speed than the D70, but a better RGB histogram , (D70 only has G). The D40x RGB histogram is cumbersome to excess, however. The d40x has a beautiful, bigger LCD. You'll need to purchase different memory cards with the D40x, though.

 

Actually, I think I would just get the D200 and use the D70 as a back-up body. The D70 and D200 meter similarly, too.

[heartyfisher]

John, I guess I feel that I would like more Mpixels.. because I think some of the Micro Stock sites want greater than 6 MP. Not that I have submited into Micro Stock Sites. Just musing in my half asleep state. Also I am mucking around in PP more amd It may be more fun with more MPixels

 

I am really just starting(restarting) in photography. The D40X is much newer than the ol d70 so it may have some better features. I was hoping that someone could highlight these "new features" compared to the D70. Having said that the D70 is a real Gem.

[at]

....I dont want to get the D200 only to have to get the next version of the D200 in a few months time....

 

If a D200s or what ever is introduced in a few months what would suddenly render the D200 unusable? The d70 is a great camera. Keep it. If you do not have any "fast" lenses (ie. 50mm 1.8 or 1.4, any of the constant f2.8 zooms) invest there. With faster lenses you have much more control over your background and depth of field which can dramaticaly change a photograph. IMO, stay away from low end VR lenses as well. These usually have minimum apertures of of 3.5 and only get slower as you zoom. While they can help with low light performance they rob you of vital control of depth of field and background blur. Also, the d70 is still one of the better dslr's for infrared work.

[benniehoff]

I think the inability to autofocus with non-AF-S lenses will frustrate you soon enough. When you do start to build up your collection of f/2.8 lenses, I think you'll want the <i>opportunity</i> at least to get a few older (and therefore, cheaper) ordinary AF models. There is a lot of great glass out there that doesn't have an AF-S motor.

<p>

While you <i>could</i> buy this glass anyway, and simply not use it on your D40x, I think you would still get frustrated that you have a "backup body" that is not able to fully utilize your lens collection. And while the D40x body is lighter, it is not so significantly lighter that it will magically relieve your shoulder; but it is light enough that it feels unbalanced on lenses like the 18-200 VR (and lighter lenses, like the 50mm f/1.8, are not AF-S!).

<p>

If you have the money and you want to upgrade, I'd say get a D200 and not worry about whatever the next model will be. The D200 is an excellent camera, the weight is just right (remember, a little more weight will help dampen camera shake), the rubber grip is a pleasure to hold, and the external, non-menu controls are a joy to operate.

<p>

But if you don't NEED a second body right now, and the possibility of a new camera coming out soon bothers you, then by all means, keep using your D70, save your money, and wait for the "next D200" to be released. I don't think it will be that soon, though. Weren't the D2X, D2H out for a while before the D200 was released? And I don't see any new model yet in that range.

[heartyfisher]

"I dont want to get the D200 only to have to get the next version of the D200 in a few months time...."

 

Some of the reasons I am wanting to upgrade the D70 is with regard to HigherISO, better noise control and greater dynamic range. all of which the D200 does not provide a significant advance. From looking at all the new technology that is out there eg S5, MK3, Alpha. The next D200 should address these issues.

[heartyfisher]

""next D200" to be released. I don't think it will be that soon, though."

 

Thats part of the reason I am considering the d40x. as a stop gap until my "real" system is available in 1 years time or more. So I dont spend so much now. but it would still be usefull in 3-5 years time. by which time the ol D70 would be a bit weak?

[ShunCheung]

In another year or so when the "real" system you want today is available, I have little doubt that your target will move again and the "real system" you want will be another year or two away.

 

If you are still happy enough with your D70, I'd say stick with it until you cannot stand it any more. Otherwise, you'll likely be buying a new generation of cameras every year, which is not necessarily a problem if you can afford it.

[paul_sargent]

<p>If you're just looking because some stock photo place won't accept images under X-MegaPixels then you're being silly. Just send them up-rezzed TIFFs (done in a non-silly way). Strip the EXIF data and they won't know.</p>

 

<p>Remember:<br>

6 Mpix = 3k x 2k<br>

10 Mpix = 3.8k x 2.5k<br></p>

 

<p>It's not a big difference.</p>

 

<p>Apart from that a D40x is probably going to annoy you because you'll lose features.</p>

[tonybeach]

"Some of the reasons I am wanting to upgrade the D70 is with regard to HigherISO, better noise control and greater dynamic range. all of which the D200 does not provide a significant advance. From looking at all the new technology that is out there eg S5, MK3, Alpha. The next D200 should address these issues."

 

The S5 has more DR, but the others do not. For out of the camera JPEG the D40x is better than the D80 or the D200, but the RAW data is essentially the same. The real upgrade to the D70 is the D200 and to a lesser extent the D80 or D40x (which are just as slow as the D70 but have more resolution and the D80 has a slightly larger buffer).

 

I don't think the D200s will be better at handling noise or DR in its RAW files than the D200, and if Nikon uses the CMOS sensor from the D2xs it will actually be worse. However, the OOC JPEGs will be better. Based on what you have said so far (no mention of fps, buffer, or price), I think the S5 would be your best choice.

 

BTW, you told us not to mention the MkIII and then you went and mentioned it. I guess it's the elephant in the corner of every discussion about upgrading cameras. What makes it particularly irritating though is that you are now offering a $4500 (USD) camera that is still hardly available as competition for cameras costing less than half that much that are widely available. You should try to keep your thread from going OT.

[heartyfisher]

"you are now offering a $4500 (USD) camera that is still hardly available as competition for cameras costing less than half that much that are widely available"

 

Its all in my sub concious.. as I am barely concious at the moment :-) (4am here) But I think its a valid point and I am glad you brought it up. however The time frame for my "real camera" up grade is probably 2-3 years away by which time the features targeted by the "new D200" would be similar to our "dark one". hence this thred regaring a stop gap upgrade to the D70. If the "d200s" does not address these issues then I think there will be many going over to the dark side. Me I will probably hold on to my d70 and "stop gap" till the "real camera" arrives.

 

(hmmm 30th aniversay on my subconcious too I guess) :-)

[elliot1]

Having owned the d70 and now the d40, my opinion is that you will like the d40 or d40x much better than the d70. You need to look at one closely and if it interests you, buy it and try it out. Many stores accept returns without restocking fees. This is the only way you will know for sure. Compare prints from the two. Compare the feel and controls.

 

I was never happy with my d70's picture quality, but find the d40 takes pictures as good as my d200. The increase in resolution from 6mp to 10mp is small - I would suggest the d40 and save your money. Unless you are making huge posters or extreme crops, you likely won't see a difference in your prints (up to 12 x 18).

 

The viewfinder and large monitor are really nice features of the d40 line. It has better noise reduction, especially at higher ISO's.

 

Good luck!

[photo5]

If your concern is noise, the D80 has better high ISO performance than the D200.

 

And yes Dave Petley, the D80 *is* is super camera. Keep your negative comments to yourself, they aren't helpful to the original poster.

 

Dave

[Jim_Tardio]

I agree with Elliot. I've worn out two D70s. After using a D40 for a long weekend trip I'd rather have my own D40 than another D70. I'm currently shooting with a D200 & a Canon 5D. The D40 is a nice relief from the size & weight of those cameras, and the files are comparable to the D200.

<p>

I haven't used the D40x.

[dan_k6]

From a D70, I would go to a D200. D40x is a step backwards.

[hayward]

I currently have a D200, D50, and D40x. I shot with a D70 for more than a year. The D40x is a better camera than the D70 in every respect except its lack of focus with non AF-S cameras, the flash sync speed, the focusing gridlines, the focus point lock switch, and top LCD panel, all which may or may not matter to you. I tend to agree with some of the posters, though, in that I'd tend to buy a D200 or a D80 (with which I have no experience) as a more significant upgrade if I were coming from a D70.

[tonybeach]

Tze wrote:

 

...The time frame for my "real camera" up grade is probably 2-3 years away by which time the features targeted by the "new D200" would be similar to our "dark one". hence this thred regaring a stop gap upgrade to the D70. If the "d200s" does not address these issues then I think there will be many going over to the dark side. Me I will probably hold on to my d70 and "stop gap" till the "real camera" arrives.

 

My reply:

 

I would refer you back to Shun's post in this thread. You are chasing a moving target that you can't hit until it stops -- and it will never stop. Satisfy your NAS with a lens or two for now, that will give you the most bang for your buck because the jump from consumer lenses to pro lenses is greater than the jump from 6 MP to 10 MP.

 

Going back to your OP, I would say there is something tangibly better about the images I get from my D200 than what I got from my D70 cameras. I have not been able to clearly identify it, but my latest theory is that there is less IR and UV contamination. Another thing to consider is that my 17 year old son and I can both tell the difference in shutter lag between the D70 and D200; and while the D80 would have slightly slower shutter lag, the D40 and D40x would be about the same as the D70.

[heartyfisher]

"chasing a moving target that you can't hit until it stops" I am probably in denial.. but I dont think thats the case.

 

I have a fixed point from which to gauge features and that is the D70.

I am fairly happy with the D70 feature set in terms of Frames per second layout etc.etc .. still there is a whole bunch of nice to haves that the D200 (semi pro) provides( Bigger screen, compatibility with older lenses etc). except that the key features that would make me upgrade to a d200 class camera and spend the money for that class of camera is, higher dynamic range, higher ISO, better noise control that the D200 does not provide.

 

The key feature to me that the D200/d80/d40x has over the D70 is the new sensor (at 10mp) and of these 3 the D40x has possibly the newest technology included in the firmware and is cheapest. Since its a stop gap solution until the d200s arrives that(price)is a key consideration too.

 

Another thing is my 18-200vr is hogging my D70. I am a lazy fellow when it comes to changing lenses and the excuse of "dust bunnies" just makes that worse. Part of my logic in getting the D40x (probaly fairly illogical) is to have a camera mainly to host my 18-200VR(would be great for holidays too) so I can get to play more with my other lenses (12-24 nikkor, 18-70nikkor[probably will be selling this]) and my soon to be bought F2.8 lenses(maybe 90mm tamron and/or 28-75 tamron and/or 50-150 sigma ) and a long lens. what i buy depends on what I get from a whole bunch of old glass soon to be aquired from my brother (50mm F1.2, 80-200, 55micro, 50mmE f1.8.. . etc.. ) which would work great with the "real camera" aka d200s (WHEN IT ARRIVES)

 

So the D40x seems like an attractive step up specifiaclly to be used with the 18-200VR since that lens is not that sharp. In 3-6 years time when I get my shinny new 70-200 F2.5 VR3 it would work great with the "d200sx" and I can leave the 18-200 happily coupled with the d40x

for holidays and parties etc.. Does that make any sense.. or am I an lala land? John seems to like the D40x :-)

[tonybeach]

Lets get something straight here, the D40x uses the same sensor as the D80, which is a variant of the sensor used by the D200. The most advanced sensor of the three is the D200 because it utilizes 4 channel output -- not a concern for you at this time, but that's the case and it could become something you come to appreciate if you actually had a chance to experience it. The ASIC on the D40x is the most advanced, and that changes the OOC JPEGs, but you can almost always get better results shooting RAW and using good software to make the conversion (ACR is my pet peeve here, it is not a very good converter).

 

Since you said more than once that you are "fairly happy" with your D70, taking a step back in UI with a D40x does not make any sense to me. You can get the same RAW data from the D40x or the D200 and the cost difference right now is $700 versus $1400. In addition to a larger viewfinder, larger buffer and better AF, the D200 can AF with a long list of lenses that are crippled on the D40x. See my post here for lenses currently available new that will not AF with the D40 or D40x: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00LEdV

 

I have a strong suspicion that the D200s will use the same sensor as the D2x. Now I could be off the mark on this, but if they do then nothing on your list of concerns will be addressed by that. If on the other hand, the D200s comes out with a new sensor, then it will be after the D3 has come out since Nikon isn't going to undercut their top tier cameras with better technology being made available in their second tier cameras. If Nikon upgrades the D200 to a D200s before retiring the D2x, then the upgrade will be like the upgrade was from the D70 to D70s (i.e., it will be inconsequential). In the meantime, if you buy a D40x you will be using cameras that will not not meter on non-AF lenses and you will have to choose between larger prints with the D40x and the ability to AF on a host of lenses with the D70. If I were you, I would get the D200 (I already did that last year, and I have never regretted it) and stick that uber zoom on your D70 and do all my serious photography with the D200.

[tonybeach]

One last thing I forgot about, which has already been mentioned by me once and bears repeating. The camera that you seem to want already exists, it's the S5.