D40 vs K100d Differences Buying Guide

[dingdongbubble]

Alright folks yes this questions has been asked a LOT. I just dont feel like sifting through an innumerable amount of posts to get a few points while hopping in favor of one camera for a sec and then the other the next second.

What I want is a succinct list (not a LONG one) of the MAJOR or NOTICEable differences, advantages and disadvantages over each other. I will list the ones I know and from those you can guess what type of answer I would like.

D40:
Bigger buffer
Lower ISO Noise (gets countered by SR on k100d)
Lighter
Better Viewfinder
More battery life in general
Focus assist lamp (countered by flash assist)
In camera help (not important to me but significant for some folks)
Lithium Ion Batteries that last longer and are lighter but are proprietary and expensive.

K100d:
Autofocus
Shake Reduction (gets countered by low noise on d40)
Slightly better value
Exposure Bracketing
11 focus points (what difference does that make?)
Slightly slower start up (not very noticeable)
Can use AA which can be bought cheaply when you run out of batteries.

What I didnt care for on both cams:
D-Lightning

OK thats not much but with your help, I will edit my post with the points listed out according to importance. This might even help prospective buyers!

 

[epicwelshman]

I think a BIG issue for some is the ease of getting accessories/lenses etc. for Nikon over Pentax. Sure, Pentax is a big company but in my experience it's a lot easier getting accessories for a Nikon. It also depends on whether friends have Nikon lenses/accessories you can borrow.

I've never held a K100d, so I can't say how it "feels", but are the ergonomics important to you? I love how my D40x feels in my hand.

One MAJOR (for some) disadvantage of the D40/x is the lack of focus motor, hence lack of support for older lenses. As the D40 was my first dSLR this wasn't an issue for me, but it may be for some.

Hope this helps!

 

[dingdongbubble]

Yes I have already listed that k100d has autofocus. The k100d and d40 are entry level cameras for first timers mostly. I dont think that they would be buying high end lenses or would find a big disadvantage if they cant get specific lens unlike pros.

 

[66217]

Read this review. Which compares the D40 and the K100D.

I opted for the D40, now only waiting to save some money to get it. I have decided that if I ever get more into photography, I would like to have something like the Nikon D200, so starting with a Nikon seems the way to go.

Asides from missing the auto-focus buil-in motor, the D40 appears to be a very friendly dslr for beginners.

 

[dingdongbubble]

No one seems to have asked this but which is better in terms of low light performance:
The D40's excellent high ISO, low noise performance OR
The k100d's Shake Reduction?

If I have a particular low light scene, then which camera should give me better results? Remember low shutters speeds heat up the sensor and cause noise to appear and when you use the SR on the k100d, you will be using slower shutter speeds.

 

[termina3]

The D40's excellent high ISO, low noise performance OR
The k100d's Shake Reduction?

If I have a particular low light scene, then which camera should give me better results? Remember low shutters speeds heat up the sensor and cause noise to appear and when you use the SR on the k100d, you will be using slower shutter speeds.

While Pentax opted to go with in-camera "shake reduction", most of Nikon's lenses (including many consumer lenses) have in-lens "vibration reduction (VR)".

I would think that high ISO would be better, but I've never used the SR Pentax advertises.

 

[ChrisA]

Alright folks yes this questions has been asked a LOT. ..

THe biggest difference is that the Nikon camera take nikon lenses and the Pentax camera, pentax lenes. Sound dumb at fist but this is the #1 most important think to consider when you buy an SLR body. Small differences in the body don't matter much.

The D40 can accept a limited number of Nikon lenses. Atcually they all will mount on the body but some will not autofocus and some won't drive the meter. Pentax might have beter lens compatibilty with pentax lenses but there are a lot fewer Pentax than Nikon lenses.

All beginners at least every one of them on this list spend so much time deciding which SLR body to buy. That's backwards. Lenses make images . Think about what lenses yu want to own 5 years from now

 

[kwajo.com]

While Pentax opted to go with in-camera "shake reduction", most of Nikon's lenses (including many consumer lenses) have in-lens "vibration reduction (VR)".

I would think that high ISO would be better, but I've never used the SR Pentax advertises.

The built-in SR is miles ahead of just raising the ISO on a shot, trust me I've used it hundreds of times. You can gain at least a full exposure stop by turning on SR, it works brilliantly, and is compatible with any lens you mount on the camera, not just costly VR-type lenses like Nikon and Canon use. This means you could grab a 40-year old Pentax lens from your K1000 and still get Shake Reduction, and full metering, and focus confirmation, which is phenomenal if you ask me.

The K100D is a great camera, has the best backward compatibility on the market, is built much more solidly than most dSLRs at the price, and numerous other advantages.

For me it would be an easy choice, but you need to decide what is best for you, so go to a shop and try each of them, think about what kinds of photographs you are going to take and which lenses might be best suited for those tasks, and then make your decision. Don't be influenced by advertising or salespeople, make the choice that is right for you. In the end, all the major manufacturers make very impressive cameras and lenses, so you can't go wrong.

 

[Abstract]

While Pentax opted to go with in-camera "shake reduction", most of Nikon's lenses (including many consumer lenses) have in-lens "vibration reduction (VR)".

No they don't. That's silly.

The built-in SR is miles ahead of just raising the ISO on a shot, trust me I've used it hundreds of times.

I like built-in shake reduction in cameras.....I really do. I wish Nikon had built-in shake reduction which shut off when a VR lens was attached. However, high ISO is can be better than shake reduction for numerous reasons. Half the time, I'd want shake reduction. The other half of the time, I'd rather have fantastic high ISO performance, as shake reduction wouldn't help at all (eg: when photographing moving subjects/objects).

High ISO performance would help in low light, and when the subject is moving. Shake reduction would only help in low light.



And a personal comment about the list above: People nowadays seem to think that EVERYTHING can be clearly compared on paper.....through lists and such. It's impossible to say which of those cameras is better. I don't care what you say about the number of AF points, bracketing, etc. Some cameras are just better than others, and it's hard to make a list explaining why. Maybe I like the photos produced by Nikon. Maybe I like the Pentax K100D, which should be more expensive than it is.

If you were buying a car, you'd likely read reviews but take the cars on a test drive anyway. With cameras, go to a store, pick them up, play with them for awhile, and then buy one of them.

 

[termina3]

You can gain at least a full exposure stop by turning on SR, it works brilliantly....

Doesn't Nikon claim 3 stops w/ VR? Arguable in reality, of course.

The K100D is a great camera, has the best backward compatibility on the market....

But which has the best forward compatibility? Which company is going to produce the best lenses, and the largest array, over the next 10 years?

Really, I prefer the in-lens VR. Namely because I think the lens is more important than the camera, and the lens will outlast the camera by a long shot. I'd rather have my investment in lenses rather than cameras.

 

[stcanard]

Doesn't Nikon claim 3 stops w/ VR? Arguable in reality, of course.

Yes, but you pay a lot less for the Pentax reduction.

IMO high ISO is more important -- low light shake can always be worked around by using a tripod. As Abstract said, high ISO is more useful for action shots. Really VR is an "emergency" situation. "Oh #$*^ I want this shot and I forgot to pack my tripod"

That said, there is so little difference these days up to ISO 800 that it isn't a factor anymore. I've seen ISO 800 shots on a K100, and it is very good. As is my D80, and my wife's D40. I might be able to tell a difference at 100% crop, if I'm looking for differences. But that's not how we normally look at photos.

The how to make the decision is very simple: LENSES

Look at the shooting you would like to do, and what lenses are available. Which company offers lenses you can afford in that range? Wander around the local camera stores and see in you area which system has the best availability of used lenses.

Then go, hold a camera, fire some test shots in the store and see what you like to hold.

That is the _only_ way to decide, and nobody in an internet forum can tell you what you need.

I had the same experience buying a tripod yesterday, I spent two hours browsing and researching, walked in the store, and ended up spending twice what I expected because once I strapped my camera on there was no longer any choice, and there was no way I could have made that decision reading about it.

 

[iAussie]

I've been keeping an eye on the entry-level DSLR market for a little while now, especially the two cameras you're comparing.

All the obvious differences have already been covered (lenses etc), but the most appealing thing to me about the K100D is the fact that it uses AA batteries - I have a set of rechargeable AAs for my current camera (a Canon S3 IS) and I'm more than happy with how long they last, plus if you're gonna be out shooting for a while, you can so easily take a spare set of disposables with you. Or if you're on holidays or travelling etc, you can just buy more.

Whilst on the topic, here in Australia you can buy the K100D with a Sigma lens (15-50mm I think) or a Pentax one (similar focal range) for about $100 more - does anybody know if the Pentax kit lens is worth the premium over the Sigma?

The D40 is certainly a very appealing camera, its got alot going for it, but the battery thing might be enough to swing my decision (once the time eventually comes to actually buy one!)

 

[dingdongbubble]

I updated it.

When the K100d Super reviews roll out, I will replace the K100d with the K100d Super which should to many people be amazing and offer an even better value for money.

 

[nbs2]

When the K100d Super reviews roll out, I will replace the K100d with the K100d Super which should to many people be amazing and offer an even better value for money.

I haven't seen any reviews yet, but from my understanding, the only difference is the dust removal system from the K10 has been brought to the K100. Is there anything else that has changed on paper?

 

[GKThursday]

I haven't seen any reviews yet, but from my understanding, the only difference is the dust removal system from the K10 has been brought to the K100. Is there anything else that has changed on paper?

"The new K100D Super adds ISO 3200 sensitivity, SDM (Supersonic Drive Motor) lens support and a Dust Removal system which operates in the same manner as the K10D; a combination of a special protective coating on the low pass filter and a high frequency 'shake' of the sensor using the SR system."

As for the main question of this thread. . .

The K100d is well worth the buy. The SR lets me take handheld shots down to about 1/15th of a second (1/8th if I can lean on something). Almost all my lenses are 30 to 40 years old, and are really good glass. My SMC M 50mm f/1.4 lens is my usual walk around, and when you take SR and a f/1.4 into account, you can shoot in really low light.
As for other lenses, you can get great deals on lenses at KEH, ebay, and other sites.

Hope this helps.

Forgot to add, with Energizer E^2 Lithiums, I can get 2000 shots on one set. If you buy a 12 pack for $20.00, you can get 6000 shots easily. And they have a shelf life of 12 years.

 

[nbs2]

"The new K100D Super adds ISO 3200 sensitivity, SDM (Supersonic Drive Motor) lens support and a Dust Removal system which operates in the same manner as the K10D; a combination of a special protective coating on the low pass filter and a high frequency 'shake' of the sensor using the SR system."

Forgot to add, with Energizer E^2 Lithiums, I can get 2000 shots on one set. If you buy a 12 pack for $20.00, you can get 6000 shots easily. And they have a shelf life of 12 years.

I'm positive ISO 3200 is available on my K100D - it may be improved on the Super, but it is there on the Not-So-Super. I guess the SDM and dust removal are the only differences (but I'd love to have both).

As for the lithiums, where do you get them for that price? I've only seen that at Sam's Club.

Making sure that I get back on topic, one caveat is the AWB tends to lean a little warm if you aren't using the flash. Otherwise it (and all of the presets) are pretty much on target. One advantage to the 11 focus points is that you can be a little more particular on what you focus on. Of the 11, 9 are cross point (or whatever they are really called) and are somehow more accurate. I don't know how it all works, but I find it handy with my kid - focusing on her when she is off center works really well.

 

[dingdongbubble]

SWEEET

How many shots can the D40 take with the Lith Ion?

For low light isnt the higher iso performance better than the SR on the k100d practically?

 

[GKThursday]

I'm positive ISO 3200 is available on my K100D - it may be improved on the Super, but it is there on the Not-So-Super. I guess the SDM and dust removal are the only differences (but I'd love to have both).

As for the lithiums, where do you get them for that price? I've only seen that at Sam's Club.

Making sure that I get back on topic, one caveat is the AWB tends to lean a little warm if you aren't using the flash. Otherwise it (and all of the presets) are pretty much on target. One advantage to the 11 focus points is that you can be a little more particular on what you focus on. Of the 11, 9 are cross point (or whatever they are really called) and are somehow more accurate. I don't know how it all works, but I find it handy with my kid - focusing on her when she is off center works really well.

Yeah, the K100d has ISO 3200, I was just quoting the dpreview news piece. I rarely use above ISO 200, but I do lots of macro work, and love the noise free look.
I get the Lithiums from Sam's, my Fiancé's family has a membership.

As for WB, I shoot raw and have a WhiBal card, so it doesn't really affect me.

 

[Grimace]

who cares about the body? You're choosing a lens family right now, bodies come and go. Check out the different lens offerings for both brands and see what might appeal to you now and maybe down the road.

Then pick the body that fits your needs (and budget) for that brand. Lower your standards (money or otherwise) for the body, not the lenses.

 

[uberfoto]

On the subject of in-body SR...

I'd like to see how well ANY in-body shake reduction performs if/when a full 24x36 size sensor is used. In-body stabilization in a Canon 5D would, let's just say, yield "less-than-pleasing" results.

Yeah, SR is cool but you can't shift the sensor around the produced image circle if the sensor fills the circle. Also, all areas in the image circle are not equal. Moving the sensor to softer areas of the image circle doesn't seem optimal...

I'm with the guys saying to look at the forward compatibility and product availability. Since I do a lot of wideangle work, a larger sensor really appeals to me. Rumors have it that Nikon are finally going to release a camera with a larger-than-APS-C sensor. The benefits of the larger surface area and (usually) decreased pixel density make it even more appealing.

...(Your name here), on the other hand, may want to stick with a cropped sensor format.

On another note, I felt using the Pentax menu and body controls to be unpleasant. I can get by with Canon's bare essential GUI and clumsy custom functions menu but Pentax's feels just as bad as Fuji's menus to me. Not that they are horrible to try to use but that I have used menus so much better that they seem that much worse. The use of tabs is great but having to get back up to the tab from the middle of a menu can be frustrating when I am used to being able to access it with one step backwards.

After shooting and becoming very familiar with several Nikon and Canon SLR's there is something about these systems that can't be written on paper or explained easily. There is definitely more to a camera than the features and even the building materials (to an extent). There is an intimacy between the camera and user that I just can't seem to get with the Pentax cameras. Canon generally has the lead in absolute image quality and high ISO performance but their menu and ergonomics give a "business only" attitude. They are easily usable and something one can get accustomed to. Nikon cameras, I swear, have a soul. Nothing will feel better or give you a better shooting experience than a Nikon camera in your hands. Both companies seem to have a good idea of what the future holds and how to best set themselves up to be at the tip of technology.

Sony, Pentax, and Olympus look like they are trying to engineer great cameras but without looking at where technology is headed. Olympus being the worst off. Sony looks ready to embrace a larger sensor but in the mean time they threw all the gimmicks available into their Alpha even if they won't be forward compatible with new advancements.

Take it FWIW. They are all good cameras but any attempt at being future proof would point at sticking with Canon or Nikon. The former slightly safer than the latter.


I shoot with a D200 currently and use some legacy MF lenses but if Nikon doesn't join the 24x36 or at least APS-H market, I might lean back to a Canon again. It is just a camera though and the pictures are only as good as the photographer taking them. Best to at least be taking pictures with SOMETHING.

 

[epicwelshman]

After shooting and becoming very familiar with several Nikon and Canon SLR's there is something about these systems that can't be written on paper or explained easily. There is definitely more to a camera than the features and even the building materials (to an extent). There is an intimacy between the camera and user that I just can't seem to get with the Pentax cameras. Canon generally has the lead in absolute image quality and high ISO performance but their menu and ergonomics give a "business only" attitude. They are easily usable and something one can get accustomed to. Nikon cameras, I swear, have a soul. Nothing will feel better or give you a better shooting experience than a Nikon camera in your hands. Both companies seem to have a good idea of what the future holds and how to best set themselves up to be at the tip of technology.

Sony, Pentax, and Olympus look like they are trying to engineer great cameras but without looking at where technology is headed. Olympus being the worst off. Sony looks ready to embrace a larger sensor but in the mean time they threw all the gimmicks available into their Alpha even if they won't be forward compatible with new advancements.

You, sir, have eloquently put into words how I feel when I hold my Nikon, especially when compared to Canon cameras. My Nikon is, corny as it may be, an extension of my body, whereas when I hold a Canon I feel like I'm holding an unfamiliar tool.

 

[GKThursday]

Medium Format Digital. . .

Canon et al may be going for a full-frame (i.e. 35mm) sensor, Pentax is going for medium format. When the 645D is finally released, Pentax will have a major leg up on dynamic range, noise, and image quality. If they can price it competitively, (anything under $20,000) they will grab a large portion of the pro market (by pro I don't mean 35mm users, but photogs who never stopped using MF film). If they can price it near the top Canon and Nikon cameras, Pentax might really steal a lot of market share.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Canon et al may be going for a full-frame (i.e. 35mm) sensor, Pentax is going for medium format. When the 645D is finally released, Pentax will have a major leg up on dynamic range, noise, and image quality. If they can price it competitively, (anything under $20,000) they will grab a large portion of the pro market (by pro I don't mean 35mm users, but photogs who never stopped using MF film). If they can price it near the top Canon and Nikon cameras, Pentax might really steal a lot of market share.

Good point

You, sir, have eloquently put into words how I feel when I hold my Nikon, especially when compared to Canon cameras. My Nikon is, corny as it may be, an extension of my body, whereas when I hold a Canon I feel like I'm holding an unfamiliar tool.

Good point

But I think you both are going way too far for the OP or for any question that was ever asked.

As for VR... In camera VR doesn't work in one very important situation: Panning. the only VR system that I know of that works with panning, tilting, and general instability from handheld shots is Nikon's VR II. The in-camera ones are wonderful, but the in-lens options from both Canon and Nikon have a bit more usefulness to them.

 

[dingdongbubble]

Can someone sticky this? So that prospective buyers can have a look?

 

[RCElectricFlyer]

In-camera IS (or VR) sounds ideal as it provides this function for all attached lenses but unfortunately the image stabilization function cannot be seen through the lens.

I'm not sure if performance of in-camera IS/VR can be optimized for all lens types. Theoretically, the performance of the IS/VR could be better optimized for a particular lens, although I have no idea how the two approaches actually compare.

With the cost of this sort of technology dropping all the time, I think the cost disadvantage of the in-lens approach will decrease.

Rob