Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Nikon D90 and D40 about the same?
- Thread starter SchneiderMan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Don't be ridiculous. I was talking about image quality. The CMOS sensor will produce better image quality than the CCD sensor in the D40. That automatically makes the D90 better than the d40. No one's arguing about composition, tripods etc.
I feel a reply coming on along the lines of how the likes of Nasa still use CCD sensors for low light photography and that the beauty of the CMOS sensor is not that it is inherently better but that it is a single chip as opposed to the multiple required for CCD but I'll leave that detailed reply to the expert. 
This pic i had to edit in Aperture to make it look good, it has had alot of noise and its not that sharp. this photo is cropped using the standard 18-55mm lens.
Attachments
Can you post the original? ISO400 at F/5.6 should not have had a lot of noise.
This thread has me flabbergasted. I honestly can't believe the advice some people have been giving.
Seriously, just get a better lens. I take all my pictures (not a very good selection, I admit) with a camera that's nearly 5 years old and I'm still not worried about quality because I use decent lenses. Even the kit lens that came with the D70 is good compared to what you get with the D40.
Get something fast. I had the 50mm f1.4, it's a pain to focus manually because the DOF is so narrow, but it's worth it.
One of the best things about faster lenses is being able to turn the ISO down, it makes a huge difference.
Seriously, just get a better lens. I take all my pictures (not a very good selection, I admit) with a camera that's nearly 5 years old and I'm still not worried about quality because I use decent lenses. Even the kit lens that came with the D70 is good compared to what you get with the D40.
Get something fast. I had the 50mm f1.4, it's a pain to focus manually because the DOF is so narrow, but it's worth it.
One of the best things about faster lenses is being able to turn the ISO down, it makes a huge difference.
The exif info for this photo says this:
175mm, f5.6, 1/800s, ISO400
If those turtles were for example 5 meters away, the depth of field at that point was around 20cm, which is about one turtle deep. That is why the photo doesn't look that sharp. If you would have used f11, you would have had a depth of field of about 40cm. Looking at that photo that would have meant the whole rock, all three turtles. Also, the highlights on the central turtle are blown out, maybe the photo would look a bit better slightly under exposed, maybe half a step.
Are you sure you were using the 18-55mm lens? The turtles were taken at 175mm and the bunny at 90mm ... Maybe it was the 55-200mm lens?
First major difference between the bunny and the turtles, the bunny was shot at f/8 and the turtles were shot at f/5.6, this is why a lot more of the bunny photo is in focus as it has a larger depth of field.
The (sun?) light reflecting off of the turtle shells is rather distracting but to try to do anything about that you would have needed to take the shot with a polarizing filter.
What did you do to the turtle shot in post processing? The original actually looks a LOT better to me.
What specifically don't you like about the turtle shot? I'm suspecting it is the out of focus background, which is simply a result of using F/5.6, if you had have used f/8 then a lot more of the shot would be in focus.
The (sun?) light reflecting off of the turtle shells is rather distracting but to try to do anything about that you would have needed to take the shot with a polarizing filter.
What did you do to the turtle shot in post processing? The original actually looks a LOT better to me.
What specifically don't you like about the turtle shot? I'm suspecting it is the out of focus background, which is simply a result of using F/5.6, if you had have used f/8 then a lot more of the shot would be in focus.
I agree with the comment regarding the poor advice given but given the original poster's recent image examples I also think the "Just get a better lens" advice falls into that category as well. The better advice would be to pick up a copy of Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson and learn about the ins and outs of exposure first.
What mode was that shot in? Aperture priority? Regardless that is the one shot where a faster lens would have helped as the ISO shouldn't have needed to be bumped to 1250 in those circumstances.
Hogfan...I stand by my statement. I'm not blaming the camera for "crappy pictures". I agree, the D40 is a capable of impressive IQ, especially considering its cost. You emphasize the person "behind the cam"....great...that's precisely what makes the D90 worth every penny over the D40. The D90 gives the skilled, experienced photographer FAR more creative freedom and FAR better tools than the D40.
The primary target audience for the D40 is someone who wants better IQ with the ease of use of a p&s. The D40 is well designed in this regard.
I must of misinterpreted what you said before then because I agree with everything you just said.
I just sold my D40 with the 18-55 kit lens, 55-200 and bought a D90. I passed on the 18-105 kit lens after reading many reviews and spent a few extra bucks for the 16-85 (which gets great reviews) and I'm thrilled with the upgrade (both features and PQ). I must say, I was happy with the D40 and took many great (to me ) photos with it. It was a great place to start, but I was ready to move to the next level. My next lens will be the 70-300VR followed by a Tokina 11-16. I think the D90 with those three lenses will cover 99% of what I want to do until the next upgrade in a couple of years. I have no regrets on starting with the D40, it was just time (for me) to move on.
Mike
) photos with it. It was a great place to start, but I was ready to move to the next level. My next lens will be the 70-300VR followed by a Tokina 11-16. I think the D90 with those three lenses will cover 99% of what I want to do until the next upgrade in a couple of years. I have no regrets on starting with the D40, it was just time (for me) to move on.Mike
Hahaha beat me to it.
Can't believe you are the first person on this thread to tell this guy to go away and learn how to use the equipment he already has before spending money on buying stuff he doesn't need.
99% of the advice on this thread is equivalent to telling a guy who doesn't know how to change gear in his BMW that he will go much faster in a Ferrari...
Now you're talking.... and believe me after reading your post I simply fell off my chair
It was a misunderstanding then. And the comment about the photos was just kidding.
I was just being funny.At first I thought that you meant that a good camera is better than technique or a new lense.
Cheers.
Getting a more expensive camera will not magically make your photos better. If you went and bought a D90 tomorrow, your photos will likely be virtually indistinguishable from those taken with your D40... there really isn't that much of an improvement in IQ. The D90 has a little less noise at high ISO and slightly better dynamic range. Other than that, your photos aren't going to improve dramatically. Much of the added cost of the D90 are due to additional convenience features, better build, AF motor, wireless flash triggering, larger LCD, etc.
If your concern is noise when shooting in lowlight, your best bet is to invest in some faster lenses (sigma 30mm f1.4 or nikon AF-S 50mm f1.4), an external flash, and a tripod. You will not be able to shoot decent handheld low light shots with your 18-55/55-200 lenses... regardless of what camera body you have.
If your concern is that the general quality of your shots aren't up to your expectations... well, I'm afraid this is not the fault of the camera body. Get yourself some books or take a photography course at your local college and learn the basics of exposure and composition. Your photos will improve far more from a $300 photography course than dropping $1000+ on a new camera body.
If your concern is noise when shooting in lowlight, your best bet is to invest in some faster lenses (sigma 30mm f1.4 or nikon AF-S 50mm f1.4), an external flash, and a tripod. You will not be able to shoot decent handheld low light shots with your 18-55/55-200 lenses... regardless of what camera body you have.
If your concern is that the general quality of your shots aren't up to your expectations... well, I'm afraid this is not the fault of the camera body. Get yourself some books or take a photography course at your local college and learn the basics of exposure and composition. Your photos will improve far more from a $300 photography course than dropping $1000+ on a new camera body.
well thanks to all of you guys that helped
I got this for now
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D
Congrats on the purchase! Best of luck with the manual focusing of such a fast prime lens!
How exactly do you expect the new lens to help with shots like the one of the turtle you posted that you are disappointed with? Stopping a faster lens like this one down further is going to make your depth of field even smaller in such shots.
well thanks to all of you guys that helped
I got this for now
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D
Wow. I know that this thread was nearly incomprehensible, but I never would've guessed that the takeaway point would end up being "who needs autofocus, anyway?" On the bright side, you can get practice manually focusing using a sliver-thin depth of field. Sorry if you're disappointed; hope you kept your receipt. Or, you could buy a D90 after all, so that you can use one of the main features of the lens you just bought.
Yeah, except that in your original reply, you (accidentally, I gather) quoted someone who conceded that the D90 had many better features than the D40, and pointed out that bad pictures are usually the fault of the photographer('s implied inability to compose shots, use the proper tools, etc). Your one-sentence response was that a CMOS sensor easily negated that argument, and bore no mention of "image quality." However, you're right, and I apologize for ridiculously assuming you paid attention to the content of your own post. Next time, I'll just ignore it.
Additionally, without going into ISO and pixel noise, I'm told that it's pretty obvious that a 12 MP sensor (D90) will outresolve a 6 MP (D40) one, CMOS or no. But thanks again for pointing out other features of the D90's superiority, because simply comparing the number of megapixels doesn't help those of us who don't know which numbers are bigger than other numbers. I know I'm in that group, although I already knew that CMOS has more letters than CCD, which automatically makes it better. Like how Vista is better than OSX, and Betamax is better than Blu-ray. That's how electronic things work, right? I guess that's why everyone used to say that the Canon 10D, with its 6 MP CMOS, produced much better output than the Nikon D200, with its pathetically primitive 10 MP CCD.
Such a sensitive lad.
I'm not even sure if the OP is reading the advice in this thread (if he is, he should be careful because there's a lot of crap to wade through to get to the good stuff), so I'm going to compile a list of things in a nice and neat list format.
1. Manual focus with such a shallow DOF is going to be loads of fun. Actually no, I'm joking. Shouldn't you have gotten the AF-S 50mm f/1.4 if you were going to get a lens? I'm not saying that you should've gotten a new lens, but that's the best way to go if you're going down the "new lens" path.
2. Better lens>better body.
3. Just because something is CMOS doesn't mean it's better than CCD... cripes, numbersyx. And even if it is, I don't think the IQ is the biggest of the OP's worries...
4. The person behind the viewfinder can usually be blamed more than the equipment being used.
I'll edit to this and add more if anything else comes up.
1. Manual focus with such a shallow DOF is going to be loads of fun. Actually no, I'm joking. Shouldn't you have gotten the AF-S 50mm f/1.4 if you were going to get a lens? I'm not saying that you should've gotten a new lens, but that's the best way to go if you're going down the "new lens" path.
2. Better lens>better body.
3. Just because something is CMOS doesn't mean it's better than CCD... cripes, numbersyx. And even if it is, I don't think the IQ is the biggest of the OP's worries...
4. The person behind the viewfinder can usually be blamed more than the equipment being used.
I'll edit to this and add more if anything else comes up.
Wait i dont understand whats wrong with manually adjusting the focus?
I know people that got this lens and have a d40 and are happy with it.
Maybe im wrong i didnt want to spend $1000 on the af-s lens just because its af-s
I know people that got this lens and have a d40 and are happy with it.
Maybe im wrong
i didnt want to spend $1000 on the af-s lens just because its af-sWhen you're dealing with such a small DOF, focus counts. If you're off just a little bit, chances are it'll be noticeable. When you're shooting wide-open, chances are that you won't nail the focus correctly that often.Wait i dont understand whats wrong with manually adjusting the focus?
I know people that got this lens and have a d40 and are happy with it.
Maybe im wrong
And, if given the choice, why choose MF over AF? At least the AF-S 50mm f/1.4 lets you do both, if you just want to manually focus for kicks and autofocus when you want the shot.