D90 or D40 for secondary wedding camera?

[john_gallino]

<p>I'm currently shooting weddings with a D300, and my secondary camera is the old D70s. The D70s is severely outdated and takes pretty noisy pictures in low light (common in wedding photography). I've been compensating with fast lenses, but I'd like to upgrade my backup camera to something with newer technology.<br>

I'm attracted to the D40 because it's very lightweight, and very affordable. I think i'll be more likely to take it for daytrips to the city and such. Though its only 6mp, I would prefer this when I'm not shooting serious events. What I don't like about it is that it has an older chip than the D300/D90, it has only one command dial (stupid). It's also a bummer that it won't be able to autofocus my 50mm f/1.8.<br>

I'm tempted to get the D90 because its the latest thing, and the inside hardware is pretty much identical to my D300 which I love very much. But with camera prices dropping every few months, and it being only a secondary camera, I'm not sure if the extra cost is warranted. I'll also have to spend an additional $40 or so on an SD card, because all I have is CFs. I'll hardly ever use the live view, and probably never use the movie mode, and $1000 is quite a bit for me.<br>

For weddings, I'll probably keep my 18-70mm on my D300 and leave my 105mm f/2 or 50mm f/1.8 on the secondary camera I end up getting.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>John, why is there a link to Answers.com in your post?</p>

[john_gallino]

<p>I'm not really sure. Some glitch related to an Answers.com add-on I have in Firefox. When you alt+click a word, it gives you a little pop up with the definition, and I did that to check if I spelled a word correctly, but for some reason it left a link in there, and now this site won't let me edit my message...</p>

[wpahnelas]

<p>john, i forgive you for the "answers.com" link, if only because you used it to check your spelling!<br>

as for your question: i really believe -- as someone who's owned both D40 and D300 -- that a D40 wouldn't make a proper backup camera for what you're trying to do. it's a decent product in it's own right, but limited in some pretty significant ways -- as you yourself recognize.<br>

i know there's a cadre around here that dislikes the D80. it ain't the latest thing, to be sure. but as a tool for serious work, it's more appropriate for what you need from a camera. and because it's on the way out, it can be had at the right price. . . unless you want to spend another $300 for the D90 -- which will be even closer to your D300.<br>

just a suggestion...</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>No problem, I'll fix your post. The new WYSIWYG editor interface for photo.net is a bit quirky and now it copies not only text from other websites, but some of the embedded code too. The site programmer is working out the bugs.</p>

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>The D70 and D40 are both old technology as far as high ISO noise goes. You will probably need to buy some crumby kit lens you don`t want with it anyway. I don`t think the D40 has a sync output for flash so you need a Wein Safe Sync. I would not want to manual focus the beast under profesional pressure and dim light.<br>

Plus side ,you need a back up lens also. The chance of needing a back up camera are not so great. It will allow more cash to be put into the new D400 with next gen sensors & processors. Or just save up for a Nikon full frame which is a wonderful camera. Ditch the toy cameras asap except for personel fun times. </p>

<p>My advice keep the D70 and save your money.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>to me the d70s will still be a better backup with a 105mm or a 50mm on it. considering weight though, the d40 might be more versatile for you. but then there goes the af and different cards issues.<br>

i shoot weddings part time. my d200 has the 17-55mm and the d70s takes the 50mm, sometimes with a kenko 1.4x. if it's an outdoor reception, the d70s takes the 18-70mm kit lens and the 70-210mm d-version on standby. these do not sound really professional to most but i get by.....anyway, i think it's best to have the second camera with a similar layout of the primary. and i agree with you on the second dial.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Would you consider a D200 as a backup/2nd camera? The big advantage is that the D200 uses exactly the same batteries and memory cards as the D300, but you lose 2 to 3 years in terms of technology.<br>

Personally, I wouldn't use a beginner camera such as the D40 even as a 2nd camera if you are getting paid to shoot weddings. It lacks a lot of useful features and you not only need to deal with SD memory cards but also a different type of battery, which also means an additional charger plus spare batteries.<br>

If you don't want a D200, I would get a D90.</p>

[john_gallino]

<p>The D200 is too old. Right now I'm leaning towards not buying anything, or maybe spending the money on another SB-800...</p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>If you are shooting with a D300 the D40 is not a viable backup unless you are really desperate. As outdated as the D70 is, it is still a more capable camera than the D40. You have such a limited range of lens you could use on the D40, you will not use it. The D40 is designed more for the first time DSLR user. A D80 is a much better choice and of course the D90 is a good backup.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I wonder what makes you feel that the D200 is "too old"? Until a year ago the D2X was my main camera and it is essentially one more year older. Those cameras lack the latest high-ISO capability but otherwise are still good (but perhaps no longer great) cameras.<br>

On the other hand, the D40's sensor is dated back to essentially the same one on the D100 and D70, whcih were introduced back in 2002 and 2004 respectively. It has always been a beginner camera from day one with plenty of limitations.</p>

[john_gallino]

<p>Then I was misinformed. I was under the impression the D40 had a newer chip and could handle noise and color much better than the D70.<br>

Maybe I'll just wait for the D90 to drop in price a couple hundred dollars.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>If the D70s is to noisy then I suggest you look at the D90, same chip as the D300. I don't believe the D200 is to old just noisy at and above ISO 400, same chip as the D80. Other than that it would serve for many more years. Since the D50, D70 and D40 are all 6meg cameras I would image noise will be very close and better than the D80, D200.</p>

[stephen_kinosh]

<p>I shoot with the D300 and I have my old reliable D70 as backup. So far, I ahve not had to use it as such, but if I'm going to go out with the family for a picnic or a drive, the D70 goes with me. Some day I amy get a 2nd D300 or g up to the D700, but I'/ll NEVER get rid of the D70. FOr me it's been a workhorse and have never caused an ounce of trouble.</p>

[eco_foto]

<p>Having owned a D40 since they came out I'm still very pleased with this tiny camera I find low light performance 1600 ISO to be very good to excellant it does have a better sensor than the D70 as well more than happy with the performance</p>