Nikon D90 and D40 about the same?

[Apple Ink]

dL.: You are using some very high end lenses there... the 18-135 is a very nice lens as compared to the 18-55 gen 1 which ships with the D40.

And you can ask anyone... your D40 30mm 1.4 pics are way more beautiful.

Finally... I'm ready to battle every single member of this forum with the renowned fact that a camera is merely a tool!

 

[SchneiderMan]

I recently borrowed my friend's D90 for a concert. I currently own a D40, and I can say the D90 is way better than D40. With my same set of skills, I am able to produce far better quality pictures from a D90 than from a D40.

Put it this way, D90 makes it easier for one to produce great image while D40 may require further post processing to get there.

These are the pics I took from D90: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dshleung/sets/72157612931769946/

The rest of them in my photostream are D40

dL

Not bad, how close where you to the stage? how far did you zoom in? thanks!

 

[wheelhot]

aaarghhh, it doesn't matter what body you have, it doesnt matter what label Nikon put on their DSLR, as long as you dont have good lenses to go along with your DSLR body, it doesn't matter if you have a pro body. Heck, if you put a pro lens (meaning very good) on a D60, you can get sharper images then a stock kit lens fit on Nikon D300 (which can be considered as pro level).

The only time you will need to take body into concern is when you are shooting sports. Other then that, glasses and lighting is the things that will improve your photographs!!!.

I own the D40 and im not happy at all with its performance in night shoots and i think its just a fancy point and shoot quality..
Now im looking to get the D90 but i really dont want it to be like or in the range of the D40. Im thinking its just for noobs too like the D40? Am i wrong about this?
What i really want to know if its better then the D40/D60 group.

Frankly speaking, you will be surprised at some of the pictures produced by this fancy point and shoot quality noob DSLR. And to answer your question, yea the D90 is better then the D40/D60 group (I bet you read KenRockwell).

 

[leighonigar]

Thanks
like i said ill be getting the nikkor 50mm f/1.4 af

Careful here, make sure you get the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF-S (NOT AF-D) if you want it to autofocus on a D40. The Sigma 30mm has 'HSM' which is broadly the same thing. So that's ok. The 50mm f/1.8 and 1.4 AF or AF-D Nikkors will not.

I'm not sure what has been said. This thread is confusing. Essentially, and for the moment I would advocate a good tripod, even above the 50mms. Could you perhaps post a night shot you're not happy with? It would then be easier to see what your problems were (noise, focus, exposure, camera-shake etc.).

 

[JDDavis]

All I can relate is my experience as I'm not a technical expert on all things Nikon. I've used a D40, a D40x, and now I currently have a D90. I'll just reiterate what has been said. The lense makes a huge difference. I will say that I would much rather shoot with with the D40x over the D40 and I prefer the D90 far more than both. (I have not used a D60 or D80). I don't know if the D40x can autofocus the 50mm 1.8 but the D90 can and it is an outstanding lense for the price. I spent several evenings when I first got the D90 and that lense amazed at how dimly lit I could take a pic with no flash. Anyway, I can absolutely vouch for the D90. I chose it over the D300 (mainly for size and weight considerations) and I have the 18-200 VRII and a 50mm 1.8 and am very happy with both. The 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses that came with the D40x are good but the D90 with the 18-200 and 50mm are for sure a big step up.

 

[numbersyx]

LOL While the D90 is much nicer than the D40 (it is newer and cost a hell of a lot more--so it should), the D40 is a lot more than just a fancy P&S. Well it is more if someone knows what they are doing. People are quick to blame the camera for their crappy pictures when 99% of the time it is the person behind the camera who is the problem.

The CMOS sensor in the D90 pretty much silences this proposition.

 

[Apple Ink]

The CMOS sensor in the D90 pretty much silences this proposition.

Your point.....

I hope you're not trying to say that if you buy a 3 year old toddler a D90.. just because it has a 'CMOS' he'll click some million dollar photos without bothering about the usual crap like composition and lighting and etc... ???

 

[rogersmj]

No kidding. There is some astonishingly bad assumptions going on in this thread. You think the D40 can't make good pictures? Look around on Flickr. There are tons of gorgeous shots made from the D40.

The D90 has a better sensor, a built-in autofocus motor, more AF points, more physical controls, etc...it will aid you in making photos, it will perhaps speed up some of the work required to set various settings and will enable you to autofocus with older glass. It will not fix your photographic technique. I'm not saying don't get a D90, because I myself am planning on upgrading from the D40 to the D90 soon, but almost everyone in this thread is blaming the D40 for bad pictures. That's crap. It will make beautiful pictures, even with the kit lens -- which, while not fast, is pretty dang sharp for a kit lens.

 

[El Cabong]

I own the D40 and im not happy at all with its performance in night shoots

like i said ill be getting the nikkor 50mm f/1.4 af

Thanks i think i made up my mind, i really like that 18-105mm lens;

Which lens are you actually planning to get? If you're getting the 50mm, make sure you get the AF-S and not the AF-D lens, as only the former will autofocus on your D40. What exactly is it that you're shooting at night? If it's something moving, then the VR lens won't help you much, but the f/1.4 lens definitely will (although I'm surprised no one has suggested a good flash); however, if it's stationary, and you're doing long exposures, fast glass is pointless (unless you really need shallow DOF), and you'd be better off investing in a good tripod (i.e. Bogen/Manfrotto, etc).

The D90 is a better camera because it offers improved autofocusing and slightly better manual control along with its higher-resolution sensor, but it's not a substitute for a good lens, and certainly not a substitute for a good photographer.

That said, I love my D300.

Also,

The CMOS sensor in the D90 pretty much silences this proposition.

Yes, absolutely. Silenced. People really are not to blame for bad photos, unless they're blamed for not buying a D90. Because I know that blurry, poorly composed, overexposed photos are automatically made amazing when they're shot using the magic of a CMOS SENSOR. In fact, a chimp throwing a D90 at a brick wall will somehow end up taking a better photo than a decent photographer with the so-inferior-it-might-as-well-be-a-tree-branch D40. Thanks, numbersyx, for clearing this up for all of us.

 

[leighonigar]

No kidding. There is some astonishingly bad assumptions going on in this thread. You think the D40 can't make good pictures? Look around on Flickr. There are tons of gorgeous shots made from the D40.

Agreed. This thread is garbled.

 

[TenPoundMonkey]

In fact, a chimp throwing a D90 at a brick wall will somehow end up taking a better photo than a decent photographer with the so-inferior-it-might-as-well-be-a-tree-branch D40. Thanks, numbersyx, for clearing this up for all of us.

hilarious...

This is a heck of a thread... we've got canon people throwing in false technical details about Nikons, the OP has now decided to buy at least 3 different lenses, CMOS cures all ills... wow.

To the OP-
get a good flash with a diffuser (SB-600, SB-800, SB-900), and a fast prime lens... play with this for awhile. Your D40 IS capable of taking very nice pics, moving up to a D90 won't magically fix any of your problems.

And, take it easy with "pro" and "consumer" etc... Any camera is capable of taking great shots with a great photographer. But the D90 is still considered "consumer", then the D300/D700 for "prosumer" and the D3/D3X for "pro". Then you're spending up to $8000 for the body. None of those cameras will automatically make your pictures better. The lenses and your skill are way more important than what body you use.

 

[jaseone]

Hilarity aside...

Schneiderman,

What exactly aren't you happy with in regards to the shots from your D40? Are they too noisy? Are they not in focus?

Why not provide some example shots that you aren't happy with and hope to have improved with purchasing a new camera body?

 

[66217]

I have to agree with previous posters, this thread has some very bad recommendations.

Don't buy a D90 if you've just had your D40 for 1 year. Believe me, your photos won't be any better than with the D40. Even if you bough the D300, your photos would look almost the same. Yes, the D90/D300 have much better ISO performance, but as for what I read, you are also looking for better photos in daylight, and the D40 and D90/D300 are the same here.

My recommendations:
- Get a fast prime. And invest on good glass.
- Get a decent tripod.
- Get an external flash. I would sugest avoiding the SB-400, and go for the SB-600.

Once you have the previous equipment, go for a better camera. Your D40 can easily last you a couple of years. If you can, try and use a 80-200 f/2.8, a 50 f/1.4, a 17-55 f/2.8, or any other pro Nikkor lens. Then you would know that what you need is not a "fancy" camera, but good glass.

So its worth getting a 50mm lens? ii dont know anything about 50mm lenses, basically the 50mm lens would be like my 18-55 when its in full zoom?

Definitely worth it. Yes, the 50mm f/1.4 would be the same as being ay 50mm in your kit lens (regarding focal length only), but the amount of light the lens would let pass is MUCH MUCH more. The same goes for sharpness. It's a day & night difference.

Great thanks guys, now for day shooting hands down the D90 is better by more then double? I really want to get better more pro looking pictures in daylight. D40 isnt really doing it after more then a year. For now im getting the 50mm nikkor glass

A D90 won't give you better images at daylight. Even a D3x won't give you better photos if you use a kit lens.

Thanks i think i made up my mind, i really like that 18-105mm lens; last question would you say that the D90 is a professional level camera? maybe like the
D80
I see nikon doesnt call the D90 a professional camera

Something tells me you want the D90 just to look more pro?

No, the D90 isn't what professionals use, most would use a D3/D700, and maybe a D300. But again, a professional isn't made because he has an expensive camera, but because he knows how to take the good photos. Meaning that, in good lighting, he would be able to get the same photo with a D40 or a D3.

And beware, the 18-105 isn't a good lens. It has (as far as I remember) a plastic mount and is not an improvement from your 18-55. What you need is faster glass. Look for lenses that have f/2.8 in their name. Or look at the 16-85, which has received some amazing reviews.

Finally... I'm ready to battle every single member of this forum with the renowned fact that a camera is merely a tool!

But, it is merely a tool only.

I'm ready to battle any single member of this forum with the incorrect fact that a "good" (pro, superior, etc) camera can get you better photos in day to day use than a "fancy P&S".

 

[Apple Ink]

Leave it.... sorry!

 

[Apple Ink]

Roco... then we'll be fighting a lot of people together....

 

[66217]

EDIT: OK, I'm confused Apple Ink, are you saying you are of the idea a good camera won't help you get better photos? If so, great minds think alike. =)

 

[jaseone]

For more examples of the images a D40 is capable of taking, check out the Flickr page for the D40:

http://flickr.com/cameras/nikon/d40/

 

[Apple Ink]

Oh dear Lord.... this thread is heading from simple craziness to torturous brutality... I lay my hands of this madness with one last comment:

Pls rank your priorities in the order of your 1) imagination (uber important) 2) Skill (can be honed with time and practice) 3) Lens 4) Body!

Thanks to those who understood me. A special thanks to those who didnt. Thanks a ton to people with some humor....

You made my day...

 

[leighonigar]

Is there any way we could hold a televised conference on this issue? I think it would be great prime-time TV.

Edit: - I wasn't sure what Apple Ink was saying with the photos either.

 

[OreoCookie]

I would look into a (used?) D80: you have many more lens options, because the D80 has a built-in focus motor. It also has a much larger viewfinder which does improve your ability to take pictures.

 

[wheelhot]

Lol...Im signing off from this thread.

To the op, Lens > Body

 

[Apple Ink]

EDIT: OK, I'm confused Apple Ink, are you saying you are of the idea a good camera won't help you get better photos? If so, great minds think alike. =)

Now you're talking.... and believe me after reading your post I simply fell off my chair ... what exactly were you saying THEN. I perfectly understand and comply with your comment in bold and in my quotes...

 

[ChrisA]

I own the D40 and im not happy at all with its performance in night shoots and i think its just a fancy point and shoot quality..
Now im looking to get the D90 .

What you need is a better LENS. If your goal is low light photography you should be looking at lenses that open up to f/1.4 or f/1.8 Or if you must use a zoom lens get one that goes to f/2.8 but you'd be best off using your feet as the "zoom" and going with an f/1.8 or f/1.4 lens.

The other thing you could do is add some light. Get the SB600 flash. The built-in flash really makes pictures look horrible. ANY directly aimed flash will do that. But the SB600 allows you to aim the flash at a wall or ceiling for "bounce flash" and that kind of light is much, much better. But still you would want the faster lens

The D90 body is not more sensitive to light and in itself will not help you problem BUT (big "but" here) the D90 as well as the D80 (or a used D50 or used D70) has a built-in focus motor. You need a body with built-in motor so that you can auto focus lenses that lack their own motors. Most of Nikon's fast primes and zooms lack motors.

Your problem is not with the D40 it's with the cheap f//5.6 lens. Get a better lens and (maybe) a camera that will fit that lens


I don't know how many times I've written here that the way to shop for an SLR is to FIRST find the lens(es) you want THEN buy the body that fits the lens.

But then people simply buy based on price and forget all advice

So my D40 is about the same as the D90? just get a better lens and im set?
thanks guys

And $1000 for a lens is too much for me to spend

Just a minute... You are willing to spend $1,000 on a D90 body but not on a lens? That's wrong Changing out the body will have almost zero efect on your pictures but buying a same price LENS wil make a huge difference in what you can photograph. Also. You will find that your D90 will have a short lifespan. No one uses 10 year old SLR bodies but lenses do last and remain usfull for decades. The $1K lens will still be a nice lens in 20 years while the $1K body will be in a landfill (or re-cycled) in 20 years

 

[leighonigar]

ChrisA - agreed. But has he ever actually said what he's doing? Is he hand holding at night? I mean... technique and knowing the limits of what you have has to be rule #1. So many people flailing around giving advice and he hasn't even shown us a problem photograph, despite, I think, being asked twice.

 

[cube]

Sell the D40, get a D50, and just buy a 50/1.8

Or don't spend so much money on a 50/1.4, it's better to get a 30/1.4 instead.