40D or D90

[krion]

As i explain earlier, 3200 on D90 and 40D is identical. but D90 is able to go for 6400 (unusable)

From the ISO 3200 samples (JPGs) I see from D90 and 40D, D90's are less noisy. (an example, DPreview's photographic tests - noise) Probably has something to do with D90's better noise reduction algorithm for jpgs.

2. Lighter than 40D. My friend has a Canon 40D, and I remember my wrist hurting after I sometime I borrowed his because of the weight. (Or maybe because his 40D came with a heavier lens haha.) My D90 now with the kit lens has just the right weight for me.

40D is only slightly heavier than D90, 822g vs 703g.
Kit lens for canon EFS 18-55 II IS is only 200g
Kit lens for Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR DX is 265g,

so the total weight for kit + body is actually 1022g vs 968g, is that a big difference?

I asked my 40D friend, he said the lens he had on his 40d that time I hands-on his camera was the 17-55mm (or was it 18-55mm, I forgot) F/2.8 lens, which caused the whole camera setup to feel heavy.

i would say canon loses out for af assist, but i would like to point out that, why do u shoot things in dark environment without a flash? when u mount on external flash, there's a stronger dedicated infra red af assist from the flash unit to help you do the job.

Why do you always shoot with flash in a dark environment? Has shooting in low-light without flash no place in the photography world?

but if you are already an existing canon user, do you wish to lose hundreds of dollars just to chase after a newer technology? which is just a matter of time, canon will come out with a better low end body to match d90, just like how 450D did on d80.

His Canon gear is just P&S (like myself having G9). He won't lose anything at all if he/she did choose Nikon, unless he/she has equipment that he/she can use with Canon dSLRs.

 

[Benosaurous]

I would say this is a popular misconception.
Frankly, there aren't many lenses between canon and nikon, that offer the exact same features for you to do a direct comparison. But if you insist on comparing, then you can try 50mm f1.8 and f1.4, 70-200mm f.28 VR(IS) etc.

It is a fact that canon has alot more line up than nikon, and offer different features.
almost all L lenses and alot of the higher quality EF lenses has usm, wherelse nikon only has a handful of similar.

24-105L, something not answered in nikkor yet, f1.2 lenses of canon is also not answered in dark side. 70-200 f4? 17-40 f4? cheap and good optics? but of cos canon cant answer for uwa of nikon, but it is a real fact of the digital lens lineup of nikkor loses canon.

telephotos and primes are the proud of canon, uwa and standard zoom is of nikkor, look at 70-200 vr review u will know.

if you are comparing the low end 50mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.4, yes nikon build is better in 50 1.8, with the price justify, both 50mm f1.4 is also similar in optics and build, but canon is 100 dollars cheaper, see it yourself in dpreview.

Price aside, consider the build of a lens. Also canon doesnt offer lens hood unless you get a L lens. You should know that L lenses are anything but cheap. But nikon does for its lenses.

contradicting, price aside, then u should consider L lenses, the lower end L lenses, 70-200 f4 and 17-40 is almost same price as the lower end nikkor lenses, and they perform better. L lens is not cheap, nikkor is even more expansive. 24-70 has a difference of 500 bucks.

Ken rockwell is not everything. Take his advice with a pinch of salt. You can try looking at the pictures in this forum.

i will agree with this, dont believe him totally. he's rather inaccurate at times

The D90 does 4.5fps right? I can live with 3fps, but of course you might say the more the merrier. This is really up to you. Usually, cameras using SD cards have a slower burst rate than those using cf cards.

another contradicting, if you can live with 3fps, 450d is a better choice. you may argue the built of a xxxD series, but the fact that it is light, 450g vs 760g.

you want something solid, heavy, xxD series is there at 800g+.

dxx series inbetween xxxD and xxD, therefore the price and specs.

This is another instance why you shouldn't just compare specs on specs.
Things on paper can look nice, but there maybe problems you didnt anticipate when you use the camera. So far, I've found nikon cams to be more accurate in autofocus than canon X0D series cams. I've used 20D&30D and they gave me lots of off-focus pics, and I spent lots of time deleting them. This is a very big problem, if you're into sports or fast-action photography. I've also used a humble D70 and it does better than 20d & 30d, in my opinion.

again comparing an outdated technology isnt really that fair, and it is very subjective with off focus pics with each individual comfortablity of using different cameras as there are alot of good focus photos from 40D. but i must agree from research, it shows that canon (xxD series) has lower auto focus accuracy rate than nikon.


what i will say is, nikon and canon has different approach, good affordable lenses on canon, great versatile bodies on nikon, there isnt a clear cut winning on both side. the choice between nikon and canon will be its ergonomic fitting you or not, whether when you hold a canon, u feel that it is the one, or vice versa.

I do find that nikon has a good marketing approach with cheaper bodies, better flash system, and willing to cut their high end series functions for lower end, that is something canon should learn, or someday they will surely be on the downside, which they are already going to be.

Wake up mr C, stop your marketing nonsense.

 

[Benosaurous]

From the ISO 3200 samples (JPGs) I see from D90 and 40D, D90's are less noisy. (an example, DPreview's photographic tests - noise) Probably has something to do with D90's better noise reduction algorithm for jpgs.

i am only seeing raw, you maybe right for jpg.

I asked my 40D friend, he said the lens he had on his 40d that time I hands-on his camera was the 17-55mm (or was it 18-55mm, I forgot) F/2.8 lens, which caused the whole camera setup to feel heavy.

dude 17-55 f2.8, is on a whole different level. the optics is the best in EFS, equal to 17-55f2.8 dx nikkor. Are you comparing that with your kit lens?

Why do you always shoot with flash in a dark environment? Has shooting in low-light without flash no place in the photography world?

no, but it dont make any sense for shooting something that you know even in focus, you will not see it in your photo. shooting in dark environment either u use a flash or a tripod with long exposure. if you are talking about concert hall, obviously needing the bigger aperture lenses, which should not have problem in that environment. but it is still better with additional lamp on nikkon af assist.

His Canon gear is just P&S (like myself having G9). He won't lose anything at all if he/she did choose Nikon, unless he/she has equipment that he/she can use with Canon dSLRs.

if he likes nikkor, i fully support him to go for it.

 

[Redkangoo]

if you getting new one, get the 50D, if you are budget constraint, get 40D 2nd handed...alot of ppl selling...for D90 price is comparable ...so depend on your budget and also what suit you

 

[krion]

dude 17-55 f2.8, is on a whole different level. the optics is the best in EFS, equal to 17-55f2.8 dx nikkor. Are you comparing that with your kit lens?

Compare? Why would I compare D90's cheap lens to this heavy lens that costs a lot?

It IS heavy, is it not?

Hence, my original comment:

2. Lighter than 40D. My friend has a Canon 40D, and I remember my wrist hurting after I sometime I borrowed his because of the weight. (Or maybe because his 40D came with a heavier lens haha.) My D90 now with the kit lens has just the right weight for me.

I didn't even talk about optics.

 

[calebk]

...
Why do you always shoot with flash in a dark environment? Has shooting in low-light without flash no place in the photography world?
...

Well...you can try telling someone to stay still for a couple of seconds. We're not masochists, and flash is there to make our photography easier.

 

[krion]

Well...you can try telling someone to stay still for a couple of seconds. We're not masochists, and flash is there to make our photography easier.

Easier, yes; better, not always.

 

[gymak90]

The last camera to have a plastic handgrip is the 1000D. From the 450D on, they all feature rubberised gripping surfaces.

Hmm really? I picked up a 40D the other day and I don't remember feeling the rubberised surface. Didn't really take a good look anyway; I put it down about 10mins later. :dunno:

 

[gymak90]

It is a fact that canon has alot more line up than nikon, and offer different features.
almost all L lenses and alot of the higher quality EF lenses has usm, wherelse nikon only has a handful of similar.

Canon has more lenses currently in production than nikon. But if you would to include discontinued lenses e.g. AIS, E series, pre-AI, I would believe the number will roughly be the same.

Nikon doesn't write SWM explicitly on its lenses. But so long you see AF-S, it can be considered a lens having internal focusing motor. So in this aspect, a lot of nikon lenses have "usm." Even kit lenses also have. Whether it focuses as fast/as quietly/as smooth as USM, is another question altogether.

24-105L, something not answered in nikkor yet, f1.2 lenses of canon is also not answered in dark side. 70-200 f4? 17-40 f4? cheap and good optics? but of cos canon cant answer for uwa of nikon, but it is a real fact of the digital lens lineup of nikkor loses canon.

I think long long ago there was a AI 35mm f1.2? Can't remember, but can't compare it with 50 f1.2, they are 2 different things.

Actually, canon and nikon don't usually directly compete with each other by producing identical lenses to snatch market share. Even for bodies, you'd see that they sell to different segments of the market, and the products are priced, in between the pricing gaps of the competitor's line-up. E.g. D90's price is roughly between 450d & 50d?

So it is good on canon's part to come with 4 variants of 70-200 for different people, different needs. But it's unlikely for nikon to directly "answer."
And this is why I've said, both companies don't have many identical lenses for you to compare. And in your opinion, nikon is better at uwa, while canon is better at zoom and telephoto lenses? It's another evidence that they compete in different market segments and rarely overlap.

contradicting, price aside, then u should consider L lenses, the lower end L lenses, 70-200 f4 and 17-40 is almost same price as the lower end nikkor lenses, and they perform better. L lens is not cheap, nikkor is even more expansive. 24-70 has a difference of 500 bucks.

Which lenses are you comparing with?
There is no similar nikkor to 70-200 f4. As for 17-40, I think the closest is 17-55? Then again, 1 is for full-frame, the other is for cropped sensor.
As for 24-70, it makes me wonder too. Maybe a difference in production methods. Or different features, like Nano Crystal coating on the nikkor?

again comparing an outdated technology isnt really that fair, and it is very subjective with off focus pics with each individual comfortablity of using different cameras as there are alot of good focus photos from 40D. but i must agree from research, it shows that canon (xxD series) has lower auto focus accuracy rate than nikon.

I was refering to my experience with 20d, 30d and d70. The d70 was introduced sometime around the 20d? Is it an outdated comparison right. In any case, it was my experience, and I haven't got a 40d and d90 to play around with to compare.
True, my statement was using something older to predict the performance of something new. But given that 30d is just a generation older than 40d, I'm doubtful on how much improvement was made. And even if there was a very significant improvement, the N camp can do likewise?

 

[calebk]

Easier, yes; better, not always.

Do you know something called bounce flash? It works wonders.

Of course, there comes a time when you will want to shoot available light (note, available light means there is still enough light for a camera to achieve focus on its own, and you should be using a fast lens anyway), but if there is not even enough light for the camera to achieve focus without assist, and you still insist on available light photography (especially with people), then you are just not making full use of tools available.

 

[krion]

Do you know something called bounce flash? It works wonders.

Of course, there comes a time when you will want to shoot available light (note, available light means there is still enough light for a camera to achieve focus on its own, and you should be using a fast lens anyway), but if there is not even enough light for the camera to achieve focus without assist, and you still insist on available light photography (especially with people), then you are just not making full use of tools available.

So shooting with flash is ALWAYS (without exception) better for low-light/dark situations?

Also, please do share how to do easy and better photography with bounce flash using the built-in flash of Canon dSLRs.

You know how this whole thing even started? It's because I just pointed out that I find Nikon dSLR's AF assist (LED) better than Canon's burst of flashes.

Now, ask people which they find more annoying when you're shooting them.

 

[calebk]

So shooting with flash is ALWAYS (without exception) better for low-light/dark situations?

Also, please do share how to do easy and better photography with bounce flash using the built-in flash of Canon dSLRs.

You know how this whole thing even started? It's because I just pointed out that I find Nikon dSLR's AF assist (LED) better than Canon's burst of flashes.

Now, ask people which they find more annoying when you're shooting them.

Just for the record, you did not point out that Nikon's AF assist is better. This is what you said:

...
Why do you always shoot with flash in a dark environment? Has shooting in low-light without flash no place in the photography world?
...

I never said shooting with flash is always better. You need to go back and re-read what I wrote; you have taken what I wrote and turned it into your own sweeping statement, and besides, I never said bounce flash must be done with the built-in flash; you brought that up too.

In any case, if one does want better results with flash, one should also expand to external flash units.

 

[krion]

I never said shooting with flash is always better.

Which is why I asked you if "shooting with flash is ALWAYS (without exception) better for low-light/dark situations" because that is what you seem to imply when you replied to my statement:

[Shooting in low light with flash is] easier, yes; better, not always.

---

You need to go back and re-read what I wrote; you have taken what I wrote and turned it into your own sweeping statement, and besides, I never said bounce flash must be done with the built-in flash; you brought that up too.

Then I guess you need to go back FURTHER and re-read my post you replied to (which I posted as a response to another person's post):

...
Why I chose D90 over 40D:

3. Dedicated AF assist light LED. I hate Canon's way of AF assist in low light (Canon uses the built-in flash).

...
i would say canon loses out for af assist, but i would like to point out that, why do u shoot things in dark environment without a flash? when u mount on external flash, there's a stronger dedicated infra red af assist from the flash unit to help you do the job.
...

...
Why do you always shoot with flash in a dark environment? Has shooting in low-light without flash no place in the photography world?
...

 

[doodah]

If you have no intention of going beyond the 16-85 VR zoom range, I suggest you go with the D90.

But if there is a chance you may upgrade your lenses, you may want to sit down and evaluate your options carefully. Nikon has no answer to Canon's 10-22, 17-55 f/2.8 IS and 70-200 f/4 IS. Of course, one can replace the over-priced and not-so-impressive Nikkor 12-24 with Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, but you'll still be left with other lenses that have no equivalent from the Nikkor side.

And if you think you may want to go FF at some point, you must also consider your options carefully.

Ultimately, it's all about lenses.

If you are just testing waters, I suggest you go rent some gear to play with before you decide. For certain kinds of shooting, Olympus has some compelling offers as well.

PS: As for AF assist lamp, I think it's useful for certain kinds of shooting. But try that in a theater or sports hall and you'll find the feature COMPLETELY USELESS cos the beam simply cannot reach the intended target distance. This is primitive technology that has been on Canon's old D30/D60 DSLRs and Sony F707/F717 etc etc. I find it redundant for my style of shooting.

 

[Headshotzx]

Both Canon and Nikon's AF assist on flash or on-camera works only to a certain range. We don't always shoot things right in front of us, there's something called telephoto lenses in very dark environments like a restaurant. That's where a Canon 85mm or 50mm f/1.2L (nikon's goes up to only f/1.4) or a bounced flash will have to be with you. Do understand that if you're going with kit lenses, neither Canon nor Nikon will be able to get you good shutter speeds in that environment.

You've already gotten the D90-- let it rest. Go out to shoot, and head over to the Nikon forum for more advice. Or maybe the newbie forum might suit you better.

Cheers,
Zexun

 

[doodah]

You've already gotten the D90-- let it rest. Go out to shoot, and head over to the Nikon forum for more advice. Or maybe the newbie forum might suit you better.

What? The OP has already bought his camera? :nono: Sigh... I shouldn't have added to this useless thread.

 

[Headshotzx]

Oh no, you're right, he hasn't gotten his camera yet. It's just Krion that keeps arguing here and there when it's not even his own thread.

 

[krion]

Oh no, you're right, he hasn't gotten his camera yet. It's just Krion that keeps arguing here and there when it's not even his own thread.

Fine. If you Canon fans really like your built-in flash as AF assist than a dedicated AF assist LED, so be it. I'll let it rest. This is the Canon forum after all.

 

[doodah]

Fine. If you Canon fans really like your built-in flash as AF assist than a dedicated AF assist LED, so be it. I'll let it rest. This is the Canon forum after all.

Yes, this is a Canon forum and as a Nikon user you can be accused of trying to stir up troubles here. :nono:

I can tell you this much: I do NOT use any AF assist whether it's from the flash or LED. I can also assure you that your D90 will struggle to lock focus under certain low light conditions with or without the AF assist, while the 40D will lock reasonably well and fast under the same conditions with no AF assist.

 

[iamshiwei]

Hi Guys..

Cool it dudes.. Play nice... there is not need to turn this thread into a Canon vs Nikon war. Everyone here are passionate about photography. And of course in any equipment comparison, there is bound to be good and bad.

Regardless, I appreciate comments from both camps. And I think i have seen enuff to make a decision. For me, I will be getting the 40D.

Primarily due to Canon's lens collection. equipment specs will change and I am pretty sure that 40d will not be my last camera. Hence, in all fairness, despite all the technological superiority of the D90, there will always be another model with better specs coming out.

Thanks once again for all your comments. Appreciate it!