Please Help!@ ~ Should I buy D40 or D40X?

[cyberkid]

Hey guys, i am in dilema now whether to buy a Nikon D40 or D40X ?
Here are the info i get from kenrockwell.com criticising the newer version D40X is not as good as the older D40.

Here are the points:

a) Slower default ISO : Only ISO 100 compared to D40's ISO 200. This can lead to images blurred from subject or camera motion or reduced depth of field. 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.

*ISO 100 - 3,200. Per the laws of physics, a 10MP sensor has to run at lower ISOs for the same performance as a 6MP sensor of the same physical size. Therefore the D40x' ISO range starts at ISO 100, not ISO 200 as the D40. The "wider range of ISOs" touted as a feature is actually a downgrade: the D40 didn't need to go slower than ISO 200 for great results, and at ISO 100 the D40x is more likely to have more blur or shallower depth of field.
b) Slower 1/200 flash sync,down from the excellent 1/500 of the D40: This reduces flash range outdoors, makes it difficult to get sharp flash shots of sports action, and reduces battery life with flash.

c) Larger files sizes clog hard drives, memory cards, waste backup CDs, and take more time to transfer, copy, backup and archive. You'll get fewer photos per memory card, which isn't much of an issue today, but waiting for all the other things is.


Do you agree that we should opt for D40 instead of D40X?
Please advice. Thanks.

Please refer : http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40x.htm

[bomby929]

erm.. ur points above are all bad points of D40x.. so it already seems that u have already made the choice.

[cyberkid]

Originally Posted by bomby929 erm.. ur points above are all bad points of D40x.. so it already seems that u have already made the choice.

I just wanna ask whether the bad points listed by the website are really that important or not.
Please help me to justify.
Thx.

[lightbrush]

Originally Posted by cyberkid a) Slower default ISO : Only ISO 100 compared to D40's ISO 200. This can lead to images blurred from subject or camera motion or reduced depth of field. 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. *ISO 100 - 3,200. Per the laws of physics, a 10MP sensor has to run at lower ISOs for the same performance as a 6MP sensor of the same physical size. Therefore the D40x' ISO range starts at ISO 100, not ISO 200 as the D40. The "wider range of ISOs" touted as a feature is actually a downgrade: the D40 didn't need to go slower than ISO 200 for great results, and at ISO 100 the D40x is more likely to have more blur or shallower depth of field. b) Slower 1/200 flash sync,down from the excellent 1/500 of the D40: This reduces flash range outdoors, makes it difficult to get sharp flash shots of sports action, and reduces battery life with flash. c) Larger files sizes clog hard drives, memory cards, waste backup CDs, and take more time to transfer, copy, backup and archive. You'll get fewer photos per memory card, which isn't much of an issue today, but waiting for all the other things is. Do you agree that we should opt for D40 instead of D40X? Please advice. Thanks. Please refer : http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40x.htm

I don't think you will be severely affected by those "issues" raised. Go for D40X for the higher pixels. You may not print at A3 but more pixels means you can crop your pictures more freely and not loose picture quality.

[azonic]

the ISO shldn be much of a problem since the d40x has great noise performance. you can simply use iso200 in the d40x without any compromise.

1/200 flash sync is fast enough for most ppl. and saw a post in dpreview about this, that a newer electronic shutter was used in the d40x compared to a cheaper mechanical shutter used in the d40. but personally i think physical performance is more important than the parts used.

shldn you consider the d60 since its alrdy released?

[azonic]

the ISO shldn be much of a problem since the d40x has great noise performance. you can simply use iso200 in the d40x without any compromise.

1/200 flash sync is fast enough for most ppl. and saw a post in dpreview about this, that a newer electronic shutter was used in the d40x compared to a cheaper mechanical shutter used in the d40. but personally i think physical performance is more important than the parts used.

shldn you consider the d60 since its alrdy released?

[lightbrush]

Originally Posted by cyberkid a) Slower default ISO : Only ISO 100 compared to D40's ISO 200. This can lead to images blurred from subject or camera motion or reduced depth of field. 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. *ISO 100 - 3,200. Per the laws of physics, a 10MP sensor has to run at lower ISOs for the same performance as a 6MP sensor of the same physical size. Therefore the D40x' ISO range starts at ISO 100, not ISO 200 as the D40. The "wider range of ISOs" touted as a feature is actually a downgrade: the D40 didn't need to go slower than ISO 200 for great results, and at ISO 100 the D40x is more likely to have more blur or shallower depth of field. b) Slower 1/200 flash sync,down from the excellent 1/500 of the D40: This reduces flash range outdoors, makes it difficult to get sharp flash shots of sports action, and reduces battery life with flash. c) Larger files sizes clog hard drives, memory cards, waste backup CDs, and take more time to transfer, copy, backup and archive. You'll get fewer photos per memory card, which isn't much of an issue today, but waiting for all the other things is. Do you agree that we should opt for D40 instead of D40X? Please advice. Thanks. Please refer : http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40x.htm

I don't think you will be severely affected by those "issues" raised. Go for D40X for the higher pixels. You may not print at A3 but more pixels means you can crop your pictures more freely and not loose picture quality.

[The Dry Box]

I feel it is more important to identify if you will be capturing actions with flash at such high sync speed in the first place. If you are, it's actually a nice feature to have.

If you have the extra budget, the D60 is actually imo, a better buy for it's improve ISO performence. Next question you should ask is, do u need the extra megapixels? It helps in cropping, but 6mp is enough for consumers. You may need to work harder for a shot with the D40, but that may not be a bad thing.

The D40 may be lightweight, but it's still a good camera. You can get it off Cathay Peninsula for just 770 nett now.
This link to a photographer who use a simple D40 body, but invest in lens. I think picture says a thousand words. He also successfully print large with the camera.
http://ianbramham.aminus3.com/portfolio/

[nakedtoes]

I will got for D40 and use the $$$ difference to get better lens

[SabaDen]

Originally Posted by nakedtoes I will got for D40 and use the $$$ difference to get better lens

How much diff? So much so that can you really buy something really good?

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by nakedtoes I will got for D40 and use the $$$ difference to get better lens

D40 kit about $800, D40X kit about $900, D40X kit with 18-55VR about $1k, D60 kit with 18-55VR about $1k. Which would you get?

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by The Dry Box I feel it is more important to identify if you will be capturing actions with flash at such high sync speed in the first place. If you are, it's actually a nice feature to have. If you have the extra budget, the D60 is actually imo, a better buy for it's improve ISO performence. Next question you should ask is, do u need the extra megapixels? It helps in cropping, but 6mp is enough for consumers. You may need to work harder for a shot with the D40, but that may not be a bad thing. The D40 may be lightweight, but it's still a good camera. You can get it off Cathay Peninsula for just 770 nett now. This link to a photographer who use a simple D40 body, but invest in lens. I think picture says a thousand words. He also successfully print large with the camera. http://ianbramham.aminus3.com/portfolio/

Are you sure D60 give better high ISO performance? So far from all the reviews out there, the best I've seen D60 can manage is on par with D40X.

[nakedtoes]

Originally Posted by SabaDen How much diff? So much so that can you really buy something really good?

NO lar.. but can spend the $$$ on others like filters, dry cabinet etc... I was aiming the D40X also but got the D40 instead.

[BlueBull]

I agree with naketoes.

Get a D40, then use the extra $$$ on lens, tripod, flash, etc.

If all you are ever going to do is take photo as a hobby and view them on PC or TV, and occasionally print 4R and once in a blue moon print A4, then the D40 is for you.

If you need the extra MP of the D40X for larger prints which you will do fairly often, then might as well get the D80 with built-in focusing motor and explore your photography with a wider range of lenses.

[The Dry Box]

Originally Posted by lsisaxon Are you sure D60 give better high ISO performance? So far from all the reviews out there, the best I've seen D60 can manage is on par with D40X.

I'm basing on the ephotozine review and also user's performence test on dpreview. Though I'm not sure of the ISO performence on raw format. But since the camera is marketed as a consumer dslr, I do not think casual users will be bothered by it's raw capabilities as long as expeed do a fine job optimising jpeg's result.

The early review from pocket lint seems to contradict ephotozine claims, but they have no samples to make assessment on.

[edentity]

From another newbie's perspective:

Got a D40 for the following reasons:

- Simply because it's cheaper.
- 6MP for me is really enough 90% of the time. But there are times I'd wish for more MP for cropping.
- I am (still) of the impression that 6MP on a APS-C sensor would have better noise performance. But that's just me.
- Used the $$ saved to buy a 50/1.8.. haven't really mastered the art of MF yet.. but this lens is really something esp. for its price.

[DiGdUb]

Dpreview tested the d40x to have wider dynamic range than d40. Also i prefer to have a lower base iso option for long exposure shots such as taking fireworks.

[racoon31e]

Originally Posted by edentity From another newbie's perspective: Got a D40 for the following reasons: - Simply because it's cheaper. - 6MP for me is really enough 90% of the time. But there are times I'd wish for more MP for cropping. - I am (still) of the impression that 6MP on a APS-C sensor would have better noise performance. But that's just me. - Used the $$ saved to buy a 50/1.8.. haven't really mastered the art of MF yet.. but this lens is really something esp. for its price.

Another newbie here.

Or perhaps you can use the $$ saved to buy a speedlight - SB-400. It'll dramatically improve your indoor shots

[skopio]

if u ask me, between d40 and d40x, d40. i dun see how anyone will take on 4 extra megapixels for more noise, slower flash sync, etc.

d40 and d60, now that's a diff question altogether. i shan't OT here.

[cyberkid]

Actually I would like to buy a 50mm F/1.8 prime lens, too bad the d40 doesn't hv AF motor