40D or D90

[iamshiwei]

Hi all,

I'm new to photography and I am thinking of purchasing my first DSLR. Would appreciate your thoughts with my purchase decision. Have read quite a few comparison about 40D vs D90. To be honest, some of the reviews seems abit biased to either canon or nikon. Hence, my post here...

Am thinking of either Canon 40D or the Nikon D90.

Basis of choosing these 2 models are down to its very similar price (about 1.3-1.4 k Body Only) and that both are quite advanced in term of features.

Things I am concerned about:

1) I will be using it mainly during my traveling (city/beach holidays, not trekking through the jungle). Hence, the type of photos I will be taking is mostly of the landscape and of friends mostly.

2) In this regards, my beef with standard pns camera would be its lack of good high ISO performance. Hence, I would appreciate a very good low-light performance from my DSLR... I.e Good IQ at high ISO ratings. ( in this respect, D90 is better since it allows for ISO of 6,400. But is it usable? I am probably not gonna blow it up thou when printing. How is the IQ for the whole ISO range compared to 40D).

3) Do not want to buy a low end DSLR and end up upgrading in the near term, hence my choice of both 40D or D90.


Things I am not concerned with:

1) megapixels. Noted that more mp is not necessarily a good thing (more noise).

2) Weight. Obviously 40D is heavier... but I tried it and it is fine.

3) 14 bit processing. Is 14bit processing a huge deal? If so, 40D would have the edge here.

4) Video capabilities. It is nice to have.... but not essential.

5) Lenses: Canon or Nikkor, Not particular in that respect, since my main aim is for traveling purposes. Planning to start with 18-55mm kit len for canon and the standard kit lens for D90 paired with a 50mm f1.8 prime (aiming to get this for starters). Do not need it for birding hence, canon's advantage in zoom lens does not really matter to me at this point. What are the strengths in Nikkor lenses anyway?

6) Flash: Not gonna be using flash as far as I can help it. Do not want to be bulked down by so many items when traveling.


Can someone comment on both systems and if there are any other things I should consider?

FYI, till now, my pns camera has been canon. The latest being Powershot S80. But, I am open to the idea of moving away from canon. Till now, I was quite set on 40D and is hence more familiar with the canon system as to the nikon system. But it seems that the D90 is quite strong in terms of specifications at the same price point.

In terms of lenses, although Nikkor lenses are more limited in range but I would like to find out about its strengths compared to canon's in terms of IQ, price, value for money?

Appreciate any comments.

Thanks,
iamshiwei

p.s Sorry for the long email.

[faineant]

Have you considered 50D, if you could save up a little more then consider it. Plus there's a classified for a month old 50D sellg for 1.8K with battery grip I think.

In my opinion the video capability is not a value-add. It might be for some people.

In fact, for me it was the 50D vs. D90 but I decided on the 50D. Too lazy to type the reasons out here...

Essentially they both have very good capabilities. I think a major gripe btwn the 40D and D90 is the LCD. D90 is far superior in this department. Believe me 920,000 dots LCD is really clear and bright, you have to see it for yourself. Of course some ppl would question the need for certain features but it's really up to you.

I think you will get more replies on the strengths of both and eventually it might boil down to something really minor that would cause you to choose one over the other.

You should go down to a camera shop and try out both.

[faineant]

Read reviews as well bro.... dpreview.com ..... dcresource .... all very good sites..

[zan82]

Just to confirm, you're planning to get a dslr for traveling, and for group shots of parties with friends? Any other foreseeable scenarios of using?

I'd suggest a smaller dslr, and adding a flash unit to go along with it. It helps a lot when traveling and having fun with a smaller cam for the examples you quoted. Also, even when you think the weight is acceptable now, you have to consider the total weight you're lugging along when traveling - batteries, accessories, storage etc. Also, getting either the d90/40d/50d and hanging out with friends is often cumbersome.

There is a compromise between noise and ISO values, and pushing ISO higher to compensate for a low light situation, assuming no tripod, will reap you pictures that are probably bad. A dslr is not the magical solution to taking good pictures at low lighting - the amount of light is still the prevalent issue. Nothing can replace a good source of light

[iamshiwei]

Thanks all for your quick response...

fianeant:

Yes, I did check out the reviews from all those sites. Obviously, pple have alot of good things to say about either models and their strengths are in different areas. For me, the deal breaker is the IQ and the high ISO performance (which is why I decided to "upgrade" my target from 450D to 40D).

Yes, I did briefly think about getting the 50D. It would be abit more than my budget.. but ultimately, I am more comfortable with the price of 40D and D90.. Otherwise, my choice will be between 50D vs D300. LOL... plus, I lost quite abit of money in the stock market.. So, its time to tighten my belt. But honestly, even if money is not an objection, I dun think 50D is worth the price difference from a 40D in terms of its specifications (just my 2 cents worth).

zan82:

Thanks for your inputs... I do understand that dslr is valued for its flexibility of having an array of lenses to suit various occasions/situations. To be fair, I do travel quite abit.. about 4 times a year on short/long trips. And during which, I have been playing with my S80 for awhile now. Thus far, I have been painfully aware of its limitations in the IQ of the shots that I am getting from it. Granted, it is still much better than alot of those mid-end pns but I been wanting to explore photography more. Hence, my interest in getting a dslr.

I have been to the shops to try the 450D, 40D (tried my cuz's 300D) and the D300. Have yet to test the D90 thou. At this point, I cant say that I like one system better than the other... since I never really own one before ( I reckon it will be more of a matter of getting used to)... but I have no strong preference for one or the other as well.

Thanks,

[zan82]

I'd still recommend getting a small dslr, and add a battery grip and flash to go with it. From what I see from your needs, it should suit you better.

At the end of the day, just compare your needs and and how each cam can fulfill it.

[aungzawwin]

let me share my small experience.
i previously owned Nikon D40 and then changed to D200 gazing at pro features. but i'm currently using Canon 40D. i was changing to D90 though ended up with Canon. i had used Canon film camera EOS88 about 10 years ago.
i liked the Nikon very much for its "auto ISO" facility in which you don't need to think of changing ISO every time you enter low light situation. i-TTL/TTL-BL flash system is very user-friendly and produces nice pics without needing any tweak of settings.
but Nikon high-end glasses are extremely expensive. that's one of major factors i decided to change to Canon. a Nikon 17-55 f2.8 lens(even without VR) is more costly than Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS lens. if you look for wider selection of affordable and very good quality lens in future, choosing Canon will be a good idea i think.
40D's all cross-type AF points are very fast and dead-on focus even with the 17-85(f4-5.6 small aperture lens) in low light. D90 will have only one cross-type middle AF sensor.
high ISO shootout is better with 40D than D200 but it will even out with D90 i guess. i found white balance the same with both brands if you use only built-in or single speedlight.
majority of Canon prime lenses are equipped with fast and quiet USM while only a few of them are AF-S in Nikon line.
a new camera body will become out of date in maximum 2 years. a lens rarely gets out- dated. i can still use the forgotten lens on my old EOS88 as good as new when i buy this 40D. i will invest in good glass for the moment. will change the body only when 70D or 80D comes out
D90 with 18-105 lens and 40D with 17-85 are more or less same priced currently. i go for Canon because i am looking forward to use affordable L lenses in near future. and i think i'm not a fan of shooting video on a DSLR..even using live view hand-held has been pretty awkward and tiresome for my weak hands
you will probably need 4 hands to take video with D90. 2 to hold still, one to focus, one to zoom in & out!
regards,

[tohwl]

I got the same prob when choosing my 1st DSLR....a 350D or a D40...

Read alot and got even more puzzled...

So, in the end i got Canon cos I jus love the brand

(I use Canon's printer, scanner, Point n shoot!!)

[Mrkcw]

i liked the Nikon very much for its "auto ISO" facility in which you don't need to think of changing ISO every time you enter low light situation.
40D's all cross-type AF points are very fast and dead-on focus even with the 17-85(f4-5.6 small aperture lens) in low light. D90 will have only one cross-type middle AF sensor.
high ISO shootout is better with 40D than D200 but it will even out with D90 ...


hi...so the canon 40D dun hav auto iso???im considering of canon 40D and nikon D90......which camera u recommend???

so another question is wht u mentioned above is the high iso shootout of canon 40D is better than D90????so the noise ctrl and sharpnes,which one is better???thx

[faineant]

Well, good luck with your choice!

[aungzawwin]

40D also has "auto ISO" feature but it starts at 400 ISO up to 800. and u can't use this feature in those "auto modes". u can use only in P, Tv, Av etc..
in Nikon, u can set your lowest desired shutter speed below which if camera thinks that speed is not enough for correct exposure, it fires up at higher ISO level automatically. u can limit the highest ISO u prefer at the same time.
for instance.. u set lowest shutter speed to be 1/15, and highest ISO to be 800. when u shoot in lowlight, the camera tries to shoot at 1/15 and at its base ISO(200 for D90). but if the light level is too low, the cam may choose 1/15 and ISO 400 automatically. if ISO 800 u set is not enough for your 1/15 shutter speed, it may fire up at ISO 800 and 1/4 shutter speed..to obtain correct exposure.
cross-type AF of all 9 sensors: according to tech explanations, to be simple, if u have peripheral cross-type AF sensors (rather than center-only), you will get faster and less-chance-of-missing AF when u compose your subject out of center position and in both horizontal and vertical position of your camera.
better ISO performance of 40D: i used D200 so i know. one thing though. i don't shoot RAW and post-process them. if u do the PP professionally the results will be same. but i think i pay for the camera to do that job for me. my duty is to look for best exposure & composition, the cam must produce its best picture DPreview's "compare to" page with D200 also mentioned about it.
u can also see the teddy bear pics in Ken Rockwell's "D200, D40, 5D, 40D high ISO comparison" in which the white fur of the toy looks better with 40D@1600 ISO than D200.
i did not have a chance to use D90 but according to DPreview, default output of Canon(450D) is crisper and more appealing while the D90 output is a little soft. but it can be tweaked to match by pressing a couple of buttons only..

honestly, i changed to Canon because i want to use L lens..some of which are within my budget. i can't even think of buying a pro-glass in Nikon line..very expensive for me.
if u want lighter body with VGA resolution LCD, auto ISO, dedicated AF-assist lamp, auto grids in view finder, in-camera CA removal etc.., D90 may be your choice
if you want crisp and contrasty direct-output with future plan of upgrading to very good affordable lenses, i would recommend Canon.

people use to say ISO & IQ things are not important but it's not 100% true. i used to get disappointed when i see my kids' blur or grainy indoor pics when i have no choice to boost ISO.
regards,

[iamshiwei]

Wow..

Thanks guys for all your comments.

I guess it really boils down to:

lenses preference: Canon glasses are cheaper. Besides, I am way more familiar with canon's lenses than Nikon.

ISO: Well, D90 wins here on the basis of high ISO ratings. Btw, what is the point of having "Auto ISO" for 40D if its only from 400 to 800?

IQ: Canon's pic seems nicer.. sharper and more constrasty. Nikon arent too bad but the pics are rather soft. But I have seen enough to conclude that D90 has IQ comparable to that of D300 (Ken Rockwell's post). Having said that, I dun think a 40d and d200 comparison can be extrapolated to a 40d and d300 comparison due to the much better cmos sensor (less noise) used in the d300 as compared to the d200 (Am I right to conclude this?). But short of comparing the same picture taken from a 40D and a D90, it is hard to conclude one way or another. (Anyone know of any such review/comparison online?)

Fps: 40D wins here with its 6.5fps. But D90 aint too bad either.

AF: 40D wins with its its 9 cross type and highlight priority. D90 only got 1 but its got D-lighting thou.

Live View: Unfortunately, I am unable to conclude which LV mode is better. or rather whats the pros and cons of either? I know it should not be used to judge a dslr.. but afterall, I am coming from a pns background, so i might tend to use it at least in the beginning. Any comments?

Other: Well, 40D body is more rugged thou Nikon's is lighter. Nikon got CA correction in-camera. Nikon got nicer LCD and video.

Essentially, here are my thoughts.

Nikon seems to hit all the right spots in terms of ISO ratings, video, in camera CA correction. But im guessing the major sticking point is the more expensive glass in the Nikkor range. Canon is more suitable for fast action and its better AF capabilities will of course will result in sharper photos.... The lenses are cheaper which is always a good thing. But the major sticking point for me is if the 40d is limited in terms of low light photography by its iso rating of 3200 as compared to the iso 6400 with the d90.

So the question is how much more expensive on average are nikkor lenses over canon? are 3rd party lenses even worth it? and if so, which 3rd party lenses should I consider? The next is if the images produced by d90 at iso 6400 is usable? and how does d90 and 40d images compare at iso 3200? Obviously, I reckon with 40d's superior AF capabilities.. it would have less trouble focusing in low light situations.

All these should take into consideration that I will mostly be taking photos while I travel.. so, mostly landscape photos and that of friends and family. Not really intending to blow it up.. Will be doing some basic pp using photoshop or lightroom. Def not gonna make a living out of it... just a hobby.. a expensive one at that.

Any comments?

p.s: please forgive me if I made any unsuitable remarks or draw certain conclusion that may seem unfair.... I'm still trying to understand photography in general... if there are any comments or conclusion you do not agree with... Please feel free to correct me, and if you do it would help if you explain why.

Thanks guys once again.

[zan82]

Originally Posted by iamshiwei Nikon seems to hit all the right spots in terms of ISO ratings, video, in camera CA correction. But im guessing the major sticking point is the more expensive glass in the Nikkor range. Canon is more suitable for fast action and its better AF capabilities will of course will result in sharper photos.... The lenses are cheaper which is always a good thing. But the major sticking point for me is if the 40d is limited in terms of low light photography by its iso rating of 3200 as compared to the iso 6400 with the d90. So the question is how much more expensive on average are nikkor lenses over canon? are 3rd party lenses even worth it? and if so, which 3rd party lenses should I consider? The next is if the images produced by d90 at iso 6400 is usable? and how does d90 and 40d images compare at iso 3200? Obviously, I reckon with 40d's superior AF capabilities.. it would have less trouble focusing in low light situations. All these should take into consideration that I will mostly be taking photos while I travel.. so, mostly landscape photos and that of friends and family. Not really intending to blow it up.. Will be doing some basic pp using photoshop or lightroom.

Shooting landscape, you can do with either cam, but you need a tripod. ISO 100 will do. And you don't need high FPS to shoot landscape.

Shooting friends and family - pardon me, like I mention before, without flash, you just have to settle with some amount of noise in your pictures. No matter how well both cam works with low light, if it is dark, noise will appear. The results of a photo with flash filling up the background, having a slower shutter speed at a relatively lower ISO will reap you better pictures than having no flash, high ISO, trying to overexert the cam

Of course, if you're comparing better bodies of 5d mk2 or d700 I can't say for sure it reaps the same result.

Have you taken a look at the other thread whether one really needs flash? Try to read through it, guess it'd be helpful.

As for lens, common group shots, typically you can shoot at f/5.6 or above. Given those situations, you don't really need fantastic lens to be able to grab satisfactory pictures, esp if you're not depending on this for a living. As for landscape, a wide-angle lens sound like a good addition.

I'd say grabbing either brands with their kit lens (for Canon, maybe get body alone and buy one off the B&S, IS version), and giving it a try.

As for checking prices, I'm sure a click to either price threads will help you more since you can compare it yourself

[Mrkcw]

so how s the compare between 14 bit and 12 bit???it is really important???
btw.......the canon do not hav such a feature like nikon (in camera retouch, D-lighting with selectable at extra high, high, normal,)

im really confused which to get...nikon D90 or canon 40D......
i knw im in canon forum...but i hope all the user can give me a suggestion...thx

[wilson68]

12-Bit Vs 14-Bit:
http://www.earthboundlight.com/photo...us-12-bit.html

[aungzawwin]

i feel like i was back to the time i was choosing between Nikon D40 and EOS 40D

points in favour of Nikon D90:
-lighter body(though it's person preference)
-much better LCD
-18-105 kit lens(vs 18-75)
-dedicated AF assist lamp for lowlight focusing
-built-in flash can control wireless flash(commander mode)
-can use 15$ wireless remote for shutter release
-use SD card(less likely to damage contact points inside camera card slot)
-2 MP more sensor resolution
-more AF points(11 vs 9)
-optional grids in viewfinder
-very flexible Auto ISO feature
-auto CA removal
-said to be usable ISO3200 & don't-know ISO6400
-video recording + hi-def TV out

points in favour of Canon 40D:
-more rugged body
-all 9 AF sensors are cross-type(vs only 1 at center)
-faster frame rate(6.5 vs 4.5)
-14 bit colour channels(though for RAW shooting only)
-broader range of very good but affordable lens selection(that does not mean Canon lenses are cheaper..by the way )
-free softwares for camera & picture control(bundled with camera purchase)

fewer points for 40D does not mean it is less useless cam than D90. i just compare those facts as if i were the first time DSLR buyer looking for better package fitting in my budget bracket.

i think you will be happy with whichever brand you will use. either will give you good pics with their default settings and better pics when u tend to know how to use them properly i used Nikon with 18-200 VR, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.8 prime. i was happy then. now i've changed to Canon..and i like the way it serves. i was unhappy only when i had to sell my Nikon lenses with lower prices when i changed to Canon
regards,

[krion]

Since May this year I've had been eyeing on a Canon 40D, and just waited for the prices to drop some more. It took me a long time actually, until the announcement of 50D and Nikon D90.

I ended up getting Nikon D90, my first dSLR.

For a comparison of Canon and Nikon lenses, I found this useful: http://www.radiantlite.com/2008/07/c...on-lenses.html

It compares the lens lineup from both companies.

Why I chose D90 over 40D:

1. Better high ISO performance AND very useful auto ISO on D90. I've now shot about a thousand pictures on my D90, and a considerable amount of them are taken in ISO 3200. Personally I find the noise for ISO3200 on the D90 acceptable.
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.
3. Dedicated AF assist light LED. I hate Canon's way of AF assist in low light (Canon uses the built-in flash).
4. LCD screen.

To be fair, here are the strong points of 40D that I would love to have:
1. Faster frame rate
2. cross-type AF sensors
3. better construction/sealing

And finally, features I didn't care for from either model:
1. Live view (btw, I don't like D90's live view at all . . . slow . . .)
2. Movie mode
3. 12-bit/14-bit conversion

[Benosaurous]

The Canon XXD series and Nikon DXX series are on a different class. And now u are comparing a older technology with a newer one. There's never fairness in this, but i know you are suiting to your pocket needs.

What i can comment is, it all boils down to your individual needs, if you are already a canon user, like me, it takes more consideration to change the system as you need to factor in the loss in selling your equipments.

If you are a new user, D90 will make a better consideration due to the fact, it is the latest technology, with good average iso, a new movie function (at its infant stage), and comfortable balance between weight and built (not too heavy yet not too weak built).

And dont get me wrong, i am making a fair comparison here, unlike any nikon or canon fans.
D90 has its own limitation, mainly, the iso performance is highly expandable (100-6400) but yet disappointing, its range of 100-1600 is similar to the older, lower class build of 450D, and at 3200 it is identical to the 1 year old 40D.

The whitebalance is bad for indoor lightings, many feed back in other country forums, but although some will argue you can just shoot with raw and edit later.

Auto iso is great, the reason y canon auto iso always cant go as high as nikon, is because canon is well known for conservative or some argue as inflexible. They do not want user to go up to the uncomfortable range of iso being 1600 for 450D, 3200 for 40D, thus cause visible grains in the image and then complains that canon sux. Lets face this, the software to allow auto iso to go up to the max is easy to make when u are already able to go 1 stop lower than max.

Canon is always leading in ISO till the era of D300 and D3, and now, they are back in action with 50D and 5Dmk2, opening up the unusable range of iso since the user demands it, hi-1, hi-2. to 12800 and 25600 respectively.

You can expect future 500D to have the iso of 100-6400 also. Technology is always advancing, we can never catch up unless u are rich.

First of all we start off with the link.
http://www.radiantlite.com/2008/07/c...on-lenses.html
This guy is obviously a nikon user and not a user of both.
Most of his comments are accurate but with very interesting contridiction, he points out that "NIKON wins my vote in this category simply because It has lenses that are versatile, good built, image quality and price that most of enthusiasts can afford or willing to buy."

But however he disagree with canon expensive prime lenses which are obviously much better than nikon in terms of IQ and built, so why are the enthusiasts he point out that are willing to pay more for nikon lenses shouldnt pay for canon? That is a joke of the day. And not to mention comparing legendary 85mm F1.2 L II to nikkor 85 F1.4 and say they are on par, and and, 200mm F2 is L with the latest IS technology of 4 stops to a nikkor 200mm F2 without VR.

End of the story for this article, i cant agree more that canon loses out extremely in the uwa range, slightly loses out in the standard zoom range, but L lenses is extremely good with telephoto and prime lenses range, not to mention they are all generally alot cheaper than nikkor. And i disagree that ethusiasts are wiling to pay more, when we are all definitely concern with our pockets.

nikon digital lenses lineup is still young, they might overtake or be on par soon, but not now.

Back to the topic,
Taking the comparison from our fellow cser, krion.

1. Better high ISO performance AND very useful auto ISO on D90. I've now shot about a thousand pictures on my D90, and a considerable amount of them are taken in ISO 3200. Personally I find the noise for ISO3200 on the D90 acceptable.
As i explain earlier, 3200 on D90 and 40D is identical. but D90 is able to go for 6400 (unusable)

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?

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.

4. LCD screen.
oh yes, 40D lcd screen is old technology, 50D has the similar or rather alittle better lcd than d90

enough of the unfair comparison, but the end of the story, if you would ask me to choose between d90 and 40d, i will too choose a d90 if i am new in photography with no equipments assets. 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.

This is one long article, i am also a user in transition, doing alot of research and justification for the dark side and canon.

if you have alot more reasons to change, and they justify the $$$ loss, do go for it, like how i am also trying justify to cost of changing a system to darkside.

happy choosing,

[gymak90]

First of all, I must this topic has been discussed for countless times in this forum, so you might want to do a search first.

Originally Posted by iamshiwei lenses preference: Canon glasses are cheaper. Besides, I am way more familiar with canon's lenses than Nikon.

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.
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.

Originally Posted by iamshiwei IQ: Canon's pic seems nicer.. sharper and more constrasty. Nikon arent too bad but the pics are rather soft. But I have seen enough to conclude that D90 has IQ comparable to that of D300 (Ken Rockwell's post). Having said that, I dun think a 40d and d200 comparison can be extrapolated to a 40d and d300 comparison due to the much better cmos sensor (less noise) used in the d300 as compared to the d200 (Am I right to conclude this?). But short of comparing the same picture taken from a 40D and a D90, it is hard to conclude one way or another. (Anyone know of any such review/comparison online?)

Ken rockwell is not everything. Take his advice with a pinch of salt. You can try looking at the pictures in this forum.
Given that you're comparing bodies of different brands, you'll not get an accurate comparison by looking at pictures. Because different lenses perform differently. Also, you need to take note, all images produced have already been modified by the camera. Right from the moment photons hit the sensor, to the image displayed on the cam's lcd, the cam has already done some adjustments.

Originally Posted by iamshiwei Fps: 40D wins here with its 6.5fps. But D90 aint too bad either.

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.

Originally Posted by iamshiwei AF: 40D wins with its its 9 cross type and highlight priority. D90 only got 1 but its got D-lighting thou.

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.

Originally Posted by iamshiwei Other: Well, 40D body is more rugged thou Nikon's is lighter.

I personally find nikon cams more comfortable to hold, especially with the rubber grips. I'm not so keen with canon's plastic covers.

Ultimately you won't go terribly wrong with canon or nikon. The best way to judge and compare, is to use both cameras and take them out on a shooting trip. You can rent them. You just need to go with whichever that suits you best.

[calebk]

Originally Posted by gymak90 ... I personally find nikon cams more comfortable to hold, especially with the rubber grips. I'm not so keen with canon's plastic covers. Ultimately you won't go terribly wrong with canon or nikon. The best way to judge and compare, is to use both cameras and take them out on a shooting trip. You can rent them. You just need to go with whichever that suits you best.

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

And yes, ultimately you can't go wrong with either.