Switching from Canon to Nikon...which NIKON?

[eric_arnold]

<p>i'm not really sure what the OP is disliking about the 40d, which i just looked up. it has 9 cross-type sensors compared to the d90's 1, 6.5 fps compared to the d90's 4.5, three custom settings compared to the d90's 0, and a weather-sealed mag-alloy chassis compared to the d90's non-sealed polycarbonate. the d90 is lighter, clearly has a better LCD and an AF assist light and 2 more megapixels (big whoop), and there are advantages to CLS with external flash. but all in all, the 40d looks like it's still a competitive camera. i can't imagine the d90's AF being better.</p>

<p>are the colors really that bad on the 40d?</p>

<p> </p>

[markci]

<p>Go D7000 or go home. (But I guess the 5100 would do in a pinch). The resolution for landscapes and low-light capability are worth it.</p>

[abbas_haider]

<p>I am shooting from film days, I used Yashica, Zenit, Olympus and other brands. Camera are same in most of the aspects and for the use that is mention you can shoot with any camera since we were shooting with film camera manual focus single point focus and all the missing gadgets. Allot of people thing of the cameras while they have to be the judge not the equipment. I do agree that better equipment results in better final pix, but you can do allot of creativity with your existing equipment.<br>

If you are doing well with your current gear then put more effort to know them best. changing brands will not result in significant results but pocket drain out.<br>

I have sigma SD14 and doing great with it though it is too slow</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>i'm not really sure what the OP is disliking about the 40d, which i just looked up. it has 9 cross-type sensors compared to the d90's 1</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eric has a very good point. I am not as familiar with Canon DSLRs, but I too looked it up. The 40D was introduced in August 2007 at an initial price of $1299. Nikon introduced the D90 a year later at $1000.</p>

<p>Back then, Canon's 30D, 40D, and 50D line used to be half a grade higher than Nikon's D70, D80, and D90. After the 50D, Canon split that line into the 7D and 60D; the 7D goes up in capabilities while the 60D goes down a bit even though it continues the model numbering. Meanwhile, the Nikon series ended with the D90. The D7000 is considerably better and costs more.</p>

<p>In other words, going from a Canon 40D to a Nikon D90 is switching from a $1300 camera to a $1000 one. It should be pretty clear that it is somewhat a downgrade if you consider the features and the prices.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>most of the advice here is that you should remain with Canon</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To some degree, yes, because for what the OP is considering, most of us simply do not see what the benefit is. And if the OP definitely wants to move to Nikon, downgrading to a D90 when she/he is not entirely happy with the 40D's AF does not seem to make sense. I would at least get a D7000.</p>

[nathan_wong2]

<p>Just responding to the OP, but I would wait for August 24th to see what Nikon brings out. I know you can't afford FF, so maybe a D7000 or D5100.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>I think this has been one of the better discussion on this board.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>In other words, going from a Canon 40D to a Nikon D90 is switching from a $1300 camera to a $1000 one. It should be pretty clear that it is somewhat a downgrade if you consider the features and the prices.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>right. a closer benchmark for an A/B comparison would be a d7000, which has better metering, the mag-alloy body, better AF, 16 mp of resolution, 2 card slots, HD video, 2 user-definable custom settings, 6fps and is newer technology; or a d300 or d300s, which has the top AF module nikon makes, up to 8 fps, and the big weather-sealed body.(and, it's still possible to get used a d300 with low actuations at a good price if the d7k is too much moolah.)</p>

<p>maybe these features are not important to the OP; maybe she just wants nikon colors and a smaller body. if so, fine. the d90 is certainly capable of producing exhibition-quality prints. but so is the 40d. what i don't get,however, is why AF is such a big issue if the OP doesn't do action. for portraits and landscapes, the d90 is capable, and in my experience, the relatively small size makes it a viable camera for street and candid photography as well. but a sports camera it ain't.</p>

 

[smooth_carrots]

<blockquote>

<p>I have shot with a Canon 30d and 40d for a few years now and owned the full frame 5d at one point.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You should have kept the 5D</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> Mostly I shoot portraits (for others), landscapes for my own personal collection, and misc such as candids, night shots, street scenes, etc... I dont' do much if any action anymore.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You should have kept the 5D</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can't afford the Nikon Full-Frame just now</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, sounds like you should have kept that full frame 5D.</p>

<p>Seriously, the 5d is full frame, has competent AF, has good high ISO for your night work, is perfect for portraits, is perfect for landscape, etc etc etc... everything you are asking for. And you sold it!</p>

<p>My suggestion? Buy another!</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>maybe lynn doesn't have any canon equipment anymore and wants to start fresh from scratch and on a budget.</p>

<p>if that is the case lynn, you can't go wrong with the D90. i have done weddings, big and small, and portraiture with a D90 and a D200 before. then i switched to a pair of D90s and i still got paid. some clients don't look at expensive equipment. they pay you for what you can deliver.</p>

<p>also, some consumer and prosumer plastic-mount lenses will run circles around thousand-dollar ones.</p>

<p>just a thought.</p>