d40x or d80

[konahead]

If you need the extra reach, go for the 70-300. If not, the 55-200 will serve you well. Both have VR, and optically, both are quite decent.

thanks for your advice...it is highly likely that i will plumb for the 55-200VR solely as i am on a tight budget...this should be reach enuff for the time being...i hope *gulp*

wish i could afford the d80, but that would basically put me in the doghouse (both with my bank and my wife:dunno::bsmilie

 

[Umeiko]

Hi,

I am not able to take part in the poll. Can anyone advise me? Thanks.

 

[chanjyj]

I was reading this thread and got the impression that most of the people here think the Nikon D40x is a lousy camera?

I'm a semi-professional who used to be a press photographer in the US (That's where I got my Nikon D2X). When I shifted back to Singapore, I tried out the D40, D40x and D80. I am now the proud owner of a Nikon D40 too.

In my humble opinion, if anyone is thinking of getting a D40x, I seriously advise against it. I would suggest you get a Nikon D40 instead. The only major "upgrade" I see in the D40x is a 10 megapix sensor. But seriously, unless you are going to print something 2 metres by 3 metres, THERE IS REALLY NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE. Megapixels do not really matter. Furthermore, the Nikon D40x "downgrades" from the D40 in flash sync speed! My Nikon D40 is at a max of 1/500. I remember quite clearly that the D40x is lower than this. I have no idea why this was so. Maybe because of a new sensor? If you are a high speed photographer then you might prefer the D40x because continous shooting is at 3.5fps rather than the D40's 2.5fps. But considering the price difference, I would take a D40 over a D40x.

I won't comment on the D80 because there is nothing really bad or good about it besides the lens thread. But 95% of the photos I shoot using my D40, I can shoot using a D80. So if the 5% difference justifies spending about $700-$800 more..

Right now, I am using my D40 full time, and my D2X has gone into cold storage (or dry storage) I wont say that the D40 can do 90% of the things my D2X can do, but I'll say that the D40 can take 90% of the photographs my D2X can.. So now, my D2X is only taken out for studio shots, where I MIGHT blow up my photos to amazing sizes where you can notice very slight differences. For weddings (on location itself) I carry along my D40+SB-800 (or even D40+SB-400) and take photos. I find that I do not really have a need for my D2x anymore. I plan to sell it away soon.

The D40 is not a novice camera (It is my main camera now). Please don't belittle it. If lenses is an issue to you, then I suggest you go straight to D200 or D2X and skip the D80, as I think $800 is not justifiable for the feature difference between the 2 cameras. And btw, I have been using the kit lens all this while (18-55mm) and have found no problems with it. It works fine everywhere. As a photographer back in the US, I hated to carry around lenses, and rarely did. I usually stuck on one lens on camera and went to take photos. I never changed lenses in the field. They took too much time. By the time your lens was changed, the president was gone.

 

[lsisaxon]

In my humble opinion, if anyone is thinking of getting a D40x, I seriously advise against it. I would suggest you get a Nikon D40 instead. The only major "upgrade" I see in the D40x is a 10 megapix sensor. But seriously, unless you are going to print something 2 metres by 3 metres, THERE IS REALLY NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE. Megapixels do not really matter. Furthermore, the Nikon D40x "downgrades" from the D40 in flash sync speed! My Nikon D40 is at a max of 1/500. I remember quite clearly that the D40x is lower than this. I have no idea why this was so. Maybe because of a new sensor? If you are a high speed photographer then you might prefer the D40x because continous shooting is at 3.5fps rather than the D40's 2.5fps. But considering the price difference, I would take a D40 over a D40x.

The 10mp sensor does not have an electronic shutter like the 6mp sensor does.

 

[chanjyj]

The 10mp sensor does not have an electronic shutter like the 6mp sensor does.

My D40 is an electronic shutter? I didn't know that . Wow. Then they should have hyped up the flash sync speed even higher!
But then again with the price tag the D40 carries... lol

 

[IceMocha]

The 10mp sensor does not have an electronic shutter like the 6mp sensor does.

Pardonme, but what's the advantage of an electronic shutter? Faster speed or faster sync?

 

[lsisaxon]

Pardonme, but what's the advantage of an electronic shutter? Faster speed or faster sync?

Faster sync. The mechanical curtain only opens up to 1/250s after which the electronic shutter cuts off for faster speeds. Your flash sync can theoretically go up to 1/8000 or the highest shutter speed available, only problem is that you will lose light because flash duration may sometimes be longer than that or there might be a triggering delay.

If it's using mechanical shutter all the way, at speeds above 1/250s, the 2nd curtain already starts to close before the first curtain is fully open, so speeds above the sync speed, when the flash fires, part of the frame will be black because the sync to the flash occurs at the point when the 1st curtain is fully open.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter because you are not supposed to sync at speeds higher than 1/500 anyway because of triggering ambiguity. For the 10mp sensor, with the sync speed at 1/250 for ISO100, the ambient exposure is essentially the same as the 6mp sensor at 1/500 because the minimum ISO is 200.

 

[chanjyj]

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter because you are not supposed to sync at speeds higher than 1/500 anyway because of triggering ambiguity. For the 10mp sensor, with the sync speed at 1/250 for ISO100, the ambient exposure is essentially the same as the 6mp sensor at 1/500 because the minimum ISO is 200.

The higher-speed sensor of the D40 allows the excellent results at ISO 200 while the less sensitive sensor of the D40x requires ISO100 for the same thing.

 

[spazzer]

thanks for your advice...additionally, i hardly print any photos at all, so all the MP in the world ain't gonna do me no good..

i think i will most likely go with the d40 kit (with 18-55mm kit lens) and a 55-200m AF-S VR...this should last me at least for the next 3 years...i hope :think: or would it be better to get a 70-300mm?

if i can swing the moolah for the d40x, i'd get it of course...but finances do not permit...

y don u juz get the body with an additional 18-200mm lens? i think it is much better that way

 

[chanjyj]

y don u juz get the body with an additional 18-200mm lens? i think it is much better that way

D40 does not retail body-only. I don't think the D40x does either.

and IMHO, the kit lens is an excellent one.. and so cheap *grin*
okay. I'm a cheapo :bsmilie:

 

[spazzer]

D40 does not retail body-only. I don't think the D40x does either.

and IMHO, the kit lens is an excellent one.. and so cheap *grin*
okay. I'm a cheapo :bsmilie:

really arh ? they do not sell body alone? try going pc show today or tomm to try

 

[BlueBull]

I was reading this thread and got the impression that most of the people here think the Nikon D40x is a lousy camera?

I'm a semi-professional who used to be a press photographer in the US (That's where I got my Nikon D2X). When I shifted back to Singapore, I tried out the D40, D40x and D80. I am now the proud owner of a Nikon D40 too.

In my humble opinion, if anyone is thinking of getting a D40x, I seriously advise against it. I would suggest you get a Nikon D40 instead. The only major "upgrade" I see in the D40x is a 10 megapix sensor. But seriously, unless you are going to print something 2 metres by 3 metres, THERE IS REALLY NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE. Megapixels do not really matter. Furthermore, the Nikon D40x "downgrades" from the D40 in flash sync speed! My Nikon D40 is at a max of 1/500. I remember quite clearly that the D40x is lower than this. I have no idea why this was so. Maybe because of a new sensor? If you are a high speed photographer then you might prefer the D40x because continous shooting is at 3.5fps rather than the D40's 2.5fps. But considering the price difference, I would take a D40 over a D40x.

I won't comment on the D80 because there is nothing really bad or good about it besides the lens thread. But 95% of the photos I shoot using my D40, I can shoot using a D80. So if the 5% difference justifies spending about $700-$800 more, go for it.

Right now, I am using my D40 full time, and my D2X has gone into cold storage (or dry storage) I wont say that the D40 can do 90% of the things my D2X can do, but I'll say that the D40 can take 90% of the photographs my D2X can.. So now, my D2X is only taken out for studio shots, where I MIGHT blow up my photos to amazing sizes where you can notice very slight differences. For weddings (on location itself) I carry along my D40+SB-600 (or even D40+SB-400) and take photos. I find that I do not really have a need for my D2x anymore. I plan to sell it away soon.

The D40 is not a novice camera (It is my main camera now). Please don't belittle it. If lenses is an issue to you, then I suggest you go straight to D200 or D2X and skip the D80, as I think $800 is not justifiable for the feature difference between the 2 cameras. And btw, I have been using the kit lens all this while (18-55mm) and have found no problems with it. It works fine everywhere. As a photographer back in the US, I hated to carry around lenses, and rarely did. I usually stuck on one lens on camera and went to take photos. I never changed lenses in the field. They took too much time. By the time your lens was changed, the president was gone.

Well said. I have been explaining the above to most people who ask why I use such an entry level cheapo DSLR. But then again, my explanations becomes too technical and complicated for most of these photography "experts" to understand.....

 

[spazzer]

Well said. I have been explaining the above to most people who ask why I use such an entry level cheapo DSLR. But then again, my explanations becomes too technical and complicated for most of these photography "experts" to understand.....

y do u say that

 

[ramboo24]

This kind'o question is quite hard to answer... It's like comparing a toyota to a mercedes. Of course, both of them are of good quality, but due to money constraints, you have to settle with the former. If money is not an issue, i would get the Mercedes anytime. So in this case, if money isn't a matter, i would get the D80. The D40x is just a D40 with faster frame rate and high MP. And of course, if money isn't the matter, i would probably have gotten a D2Xs! ;p

more like comparing hyundai sonata to accent

 

[ralli`fto]

I've tried both the D40x and D80 but i personally prefer the grip and feel of the D80 and so ended up with it. Feels more comfortable to hold and handle even though i'm not a very big person. End of the day its down to your personal preference. If a D40x feels and handle better for you then get the D40x if not then it'll be the D80.

 

[zaren]

I was reading this thread and got the impression that most of the people here think the Nikon D40x is a lousy camera?

I'm a semi-professional who used to be a press photographer in the US (That's where I got my Nikon D2X). When I shifted back to Singapore, I tried out the D40, D40x and D80. I am now the proud owner of a Nikon D40 too.

In my humble opinion, if anyone is thinking of getting a D40x, I seriously advise against it. I would suggest you get a Nikon D40 instead. The only major "upgrade" I see in the D40x is a 10 megapix sensor. But seriously, unless you are going to print something 2 metres by 3 metres, THERE IS REALLY NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE. Megapixels do not really matter. Furthermore, the Nikon D40x "downgrades" from the D40 in flash sync speed! My Nikon D40 is at a max of 1/500. I remember quite clearly that the D40x is lower than this. I have no idea why this was so. Maybe because of a new sensor? If you are a high speed photographer then you might prefer the D40x because continous shooting is at 3.5fps rather than the D40's 2.5fps. But considering the price difference, I would take a D40 over a D40x.

I won't comment on the D80 because there is nothing really bad or good about it besides the lens thread. But 95% of the photos I shoot using my D40, I can shoot using a D80. So if the 5% difference justifies spending about $700-$800 more, go for it.

Right now, I am using my D40 full time, and my D2X has gone into cold storage (or dry storage) I wont say that the D40 can do 90% of the things my D2X can do, but I'll say that the D40 can take 90% of the photographs my D2X can.. So now, my D2X is only taken out for studio shots, where I MIGHT blow up my photos to amazing sizes where you can notice very slight differences. For weddings (on location itself) I carry along my D40+SB-600 (or even D40+SB-400) and take photos. I find that I do not really have a need for my D2x anymore. I plan to sell it away soon.

The D40 is not a novice camera (It is my main camera now). Please don't belittle it. If lenses is an issue to you, then I suggest you go straight to D200 or D2X and skip the D80, as I think $800 is not justifiable for the feature difference between the 2 cameras. And btw, I have been using the kit lens all this while (18-55mm) and have found no problems with it. It works fine everywhere. As a photographer back in the US, I hated to carry around lenses, and rarely did. I usually stuck on one lens on camera and went to take photos. I never changed lenses in the field. They took too much time. By the time your lens was changed, the president was gone.

well said. these are also the main reasons why i bought a d40 kit recently. i did consider upgrading the 18-55 II lens to a 18-70 lens. but upon testing found that AF speed of the 18-55 II was actually faster than the 18-70 on the D40. so decided to keep the 18-55 II after all. d40 + 18-55 II + SB-400 makes for an v compact/lightweight combo for carrying ard.

 

[xyz123]

ya. i agreed with the post above that this comparison is not very fair.
should compare something of the same class. example, nikon d40x vs canon eos 400d, etc.

 

[calebk]

ya. i agreed with the post above that this comparison is not very fair.
should compare something of the same class. example, nikon d40x vs canon eos 400d, etc.

D40x isn't in the same class as the 400D.

 

[Ambious]

D40x isn't in the same class as the 400D.

So the class level should be in this manner?

C 300D - N D40 - C 350D - N D40X - C 400D - N D80 - C 30D - N D200

Michael

 

[calebk]

So the class level should be in this manner?

C 300D - N D40 - C 350D - N D40X - C 400D - N D80 - C 30D - N D200

Michael

No.

300D, 350D and 400D are all in the same class.

300D, 350D, 400D should be on equivalent level with the D70, D70s and D80 if I'm not mistaken.

The 10D, 20D and 30D are on almost the same level as the D100 and D200, but the D200 is better than all of the three Canon equivalents in some respect.