Images D40 vs D90

[brian_chambers2]

<p>Does anyone have a link to a site that actually compares and displays images taken on a D40 to those taken with a D90? I am thinking about upgrading and would like to see examples of the differences in image side by side. Thanks</p>

[elliot1]

<p>http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM</p>

<p>A good friend of mine upgraded to a D90 for a D40x. I have seen many of his images and in general they are visibly better. If you have the money, it is certainly worth the upgrade.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>If you are printing at only 8 x 10 or smaller, though, and get a great exposure and are good at post-processing, I bet Elliot would agree that you might not see any difference... except at really high ISOs, which the D90 is good at.</p>

<p>If you don't print big, and if you don't shoot over ISO 800 very much, you might be disappointed in the "big difference"... Unless you really have an eye for such things. I've printed some 8 x 10 stuff from my humble D50 that looks way better than anything I EVER shot with film, and is as sharp as needs be.</p>

<p>In short... Upgraded technique will make a bigger difference than an upgraded camera...</p>

[brian_chambers2]

<p>Elliot Thanks for the link to that site. It is a little hard to compare because at least on my monitor the images are displayed at different magnifications so it is hard to compare one to the other.<br>

Peter- I understand that at smaller sizes it will be hard to tell but I just want to see what the differences are if I do enlarge bigger than 8 x 10. I agree the D40 (or D50) can produce some amazing images and I have heard there isn't much difference but I am just trying to find out what the actual differences look like especially with larger prints. I have looked on the internet and haven't found any high quality side by side comparisons to see what those 6 mp and several hundred dollars gets you. I am debating upgrading camera versus buying lenses versus accessories and am trying to get my most bang for my buck and which will help me get to the next level. Thanks</p>

[elliot1]

<p>The reason they appear at different magnifications is because the D40 image is 6mp and the D90 image is 12mp. You can download the images to your computer and evaluate them however you choose.</p>

<p>What I am seeing is well balanced exposures, especially in background areas which could be attributed to D-lighing. Shadow areas also appear to be better exposed and have more detail. I am not sure why the pictures from the D90 look better. But the bottom line is they do.</p>

[c._f.]

<p>Elliot,<br>

Thank you for the site, very nice and very informative!</p>

[mike_king8]

<p>Have you not seen the BLOCKED ken rockwell website? Do a google search.<br>

It is one of the best photo common sense sites that there is. I simply cannot believe that this forums masters believe that were are so easily confused that we are not allowed to view that website.<br>

As far as the D40 goes, there is no reason whatever for any amatuer photographer to upgrade beyond the D40. The D40 is one of the best bangs for the buck that is out there besides the fact that the D40 is a fantastic camera.<br>

If you want to upgrade do it with Nikon lenses for the D40. If and when Nikon comes up with an actual performance upgrade ( instead of mere gimmick upgrades) to the D40 your lenses can move to it.<br>

OR<br>

Shoot film with a Nikon FE FM FM2n FE2 FA and scan the slides with a decent scanner. That way you get 24mp FX resolution out of a $100-$300 film camera and a $400 scanner.</p>

<p>Consider this my one and only post as I will not participate at such a seriously censored indoctrination website.</p>

[glenn_c1]

<p>I started out with a D40 and quickly upgraded to a D90 and feel it was a good decision. The D90 offers some valuable additional features, the most important of which is the in-body focus motor, which in my case has made it a far cheaper camera to own than the D40 - consequently the upgrade was a no-brainer. Other important aspects of the D90 for my use are Active D-Lighting (which KR also points out as a major worthwhile feature, by the way), second control wheel (very important IMO), sensor cleaning, and yes, the extra pixels, useful for cropping and also if you ever print big - even if you don't now, you may want to at some time in the future, and more pixels will help for that.</p>

<p>I liked my D40 and wouldn't mind having another, but honestly I wouldn't want to do without those features in even a backup or casual-walkaround camera.</p>

<p>As for whether the pictures are actually better with the D90, I didn't notice an appreciable difference. However, my learning curve in digital was very steep at the time so it's difficult for me to tell whether the camera really made a difference. I haven't studied the issue since I have no real interest in looking back. I'm sure either camera can make outstanding images but I feel the D90 is in a real sweet spot in terms of price and performance in the DSLR world and I wouldn't want to be without mine.</p>

<p>By the way I agree with you Mike, and think it's strange the way this site attempts to censor KR's website and opinions. Nevertheless it is a private site, has a right to do as it wishes, and it is a valuable resource as well. It's always good to have multiple channels for information and I read and enjoy both and then make my own decisions. On this particular point I disagree with KR.</p>

<p>Hope this is somewhat helpful to the OP.</p>