D40 vs. all the others

[heesey1010]

Hopefully this topic can be different than most of the other debates about what camera to choose.

Anyway, I'm going to pick up my first dSLR really soon and I've already done my research. For me it comes down to either Nikon and Canon, and therefore the following models:

• Nikon D40
• Nikon D60
• Canon Rebel XS
• Canon Rebel T1i

I know that the D40 is the cheapest and probably the best camera for a beginner, which is fine with me. I'm also aware that, in terms of MP, the D40 is lagging (but not really). That all being said, there's one little feature that's on all the others that's not on the D40, that CAN'T BE RECTIFIED by getting a new lens, etc. (e.g.: I know that you can buy VR/AF-S lenses to correct the problem of lack of VR and AF on the D40). The problem I'm talking about is a lack of a self-cleaning system + dust detection technology.

So after all that talk, my question is plain and simple: is a self-cleaning system + dust-detection system absolutely necessary for a beginner dSLR user like me?

(OH yeah, Live View is present on all the other models but the D40, but that's not a big issue for me.)

 

[Sir SpemzR]

I recently bought a Rebel XS and i freaggin love it!
while i was in high school we used the D60s and D40s for yearbook
and at the moment i thought they were wonderful
but then i used my friends XS and new i had to get one...

never tried the XTi so that might be better, but i recommend the XS

 

[miles01110]

So after all that talk, my question is plain and simple: is a self-cleaning system + dust-detection system absolutely necessary for a beginner dSLR user like me?

No, it's not "necessary" any more than owning a DSLR is "necessary" for taking nice pictures. It's nice to have, but all cameras get crap on the sensor at some point or another.

If you want something comparable to the D40 that's cheaper than the latest and greatest models, try the Canon Digital Rebel XTi (450D outside the US, I think).

 

[Phrasikleia]

Well, for what it's worth, my XSi has a cleaning system that activates every time I turn my camera off. After more than 15,000 photos and frequent lens changing, I still have no major dust visible at anything wider than f/20. There are four spots visible at f/32, two of which are really dark. But only one of my five lenses can even hit f/32, and since diffraction sets in round about f/11, I almost never use apertures smaller than that.

By comparison: my husband's previous camera was a Pentax K100D, which had no dust removal system. He was constantly having to clean his sensor, and I was constantly having to Photoshop out dust spots on his images.

No comparison. Night and day difference, if you ask me. The dust removal system (at least on the XSi) helps a lot.

 

[mattyb240]

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8900/4.6.1.101 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/142)

Go and hold the cameras, try the menu systen, how does it feel ergonomically? For me the Nikon felt great but it was a bit small and I did not like the menu layout. Also having to go into menus to change quick features where the canon had the dedicated buttons. A major turn off for me was the lack of exposure bracketing as I wanted to try hdr, its also good for sunsets or general tricky exposures.

 

[jake.f]

Have you considered the 450D?

 

[JFreak]

First you should consider which LENSES you are going to buy immediately, within next few years and in the long run. If you're lusting for Canon L glass or Nikkor VR glass, then that narrows your choices to half.

I can recommend Canon L glass, so therefore I would recommend choosing from the two Canon bodies you listed.

 

[heesey1010]

Thanks for all the answers so far; lemme reply to the ones in order of most recent really quick.

Canon L glass, while extremely nice, if I'm not mistaken is also extremely expensive...I'm just wanting to start off small, just baby steps. It also seems like you can't go wrong with either Canon or Nikon in terms of additional lenses.

As for the 450D (XSi here in the states), it's good but it doesn't justify the price difference for the relatively small amount of features it offers.

I should also add that I'm really not going to purchase anything until maybe end of this year, when I get a little more money so I can afford to get things like Photoshop, accessories, etc. Not to mention, I think it's about time to ditch the ol' Macbook...or at least upgrade it haha. There's also the Canon T1 which should be replacing the XS as an entry-level Canon fairly soon.

 

[Kronie]

The dust removal system is a nice feature but you certainly don't need it. Unless your normal everyday shooting is macro, you wont even really see dust spots. As other have said, look at the lenses each brand offers and if possible, go somewhere you can pick the body up and see how it feels, check out the ergonomics and the menu.

 

[JFreak]

Canon L glass, while extremely nice, if I'm not mistaken is also extremely expensive...I'm just wanting to start off small, just baby steps..

Yes, you're right, but you seem to have missed my point, which was this: you should decide *NOW* whether you want to be looking at Canon or Nikon glass in the future.

Once you have set your lens preference, buy the body accordingly. Both brands have cheap starter lenses and both accept 3rd party lenses such as Sigma EX 30mm f/1.4 which is really good value for the little money it costs. (though it only goes for crop bodies but you would not even want to start with a full-framer anyway). So the baby step for 1st lens is just the same for whichever brand you choose. It is the future that counts, because whichever of those bodies you choose, they'll be rather similar in terms of image quality and everyday use.

It is the lens that counts most, and very good glass last a lifetime. Even if you changed body every 5 years you would still love to keep the best glass you may have invested in, so please consider this before you buy into any brand. You'll be married with that decision, mark my words.

IOW, IMO it is best to first choose the lenses you dream about. Then those baby steps may in time bring you closer to that dream

 

[Kronie]

If you price out Canon and Nikon's versions of there "pro" glass, Nikon's are more expensive.

EDIT:

Canon 17-55 $950
Nikon 17-55 $1300

Canon 70-200 $1600
Nikon 70-200 $1800

Canon 16-35 $1450
Nikon 14-24 $1749

Or even consumer glass:

Canon 18-200 $595
Nikon 18-200 $699

 

[elfxmilhouse]

i really love my D40

my DSLR history is Canon Rebel XT, Canon 40D then the Nikon D40.

I think out of all the entry level cameras the D40 felt the best in my hand compared to the rebel line (Ive used the XSi and XTi).

The "downgrade" from canon 40D to nikon D40 was because I felt the 40D was way too big. sure it had lots of great features but it wasnt that much better to justify carrying a huge, more expensive camera. I was able to buy a D40 and a lens with the money from selling just my canon 40D body.

I shoot with a D40 and a sigma 30mm f 1.4

 

[carlgo]

Dust control wouldn't hurt, but my D40 spends all of its working time outside on hikes and gets its lenses changed all the time out there. I only have had one dust spot and that was easily blown away.

This is actually surprising to me. I had more dust problems in my 35mm film days.

 

[wheezy]

i really love my D40

my DSLR history is Canon Rebel XT, Canon 40D then the Nikon D40.

I think out of all the entry level cameras the D40 felt the best in my hand compared to the rebel line (Ive used the XSi and XTi).

The "downgrade" from canon 40D to nikon D40 was because I felt the 40D was way too big. sure it had lots of great features but it wasnt that much better to justify carrying a huge, more expensive camera. I was able to buy a D40 and a lens with the money from selling just my canon 40D body.

I shoot with a D40 and a sigma 30mm f 1.4

That is just ass-backwards dude. Switching from Canon to Nikon aside, jumping from a mid-range prosumer to an entry is just ... weird. Went from 6fps - 2.5fps, 9AF points to 3. 'Huge'? Really? It's that much bigger?

I don't understand the D40. Point and shoots have more features. Sensor technology has come a long ways since 2006. Some lenses can't even AF on it. I just don't get it.

I'm shooting on an 'old' Canon 20D, which doesn't have the dust shaker stuff, I wish it did. My sensor gets dirty way too fast, and cleaning up the dust is annoying. I think it's a worthwhile feature.

 

[elfxmilhouse]

That is just ass-backwards dude. Switching from Canon to Nikon aside, jumping from a mid-range prosumer to an entry is just ... weird. Went from 6fps - 2.5fps, 9AF points to 3. 'Huge'? Really? It's that much bigger?

I don't understand the D40. Point and shoots have more features. Sensor technology has come a long ways since 2006. Some lenses can't even AF on it. I just don't get it.

I'm shooting on an 'old' Canon 20D, which doesn't have the dust shaker stuff, I wish it did. My sensor gets dirty way too fast, and cleaning up the dust is annoying. I think it's a worthwhile feature.

i only use one lens. 30mm 1.4
it is made in both canon and nikon mounts.

I never used the 6 fps.

 

[Ruahrc]

Yes, you're right, but you seem to have missed my point, which was this: you should decide *NOW* whether you want to be looking at Canon or Nikon glass in the future.

Once you have set your lens preference, buy the body accordingly. Both brands have cheap starter lenses and both accept 3rd party lenses such as Sigma EX 30mm f/1.4 which is really good value for the little money it costs. (though it only goes for crop bodies but you would not even want to start with a full-framer anyway). So the baby step for 1st lens is just the same for whichever brand you choose. It is the future that counts, because whichever of those bodies you choose, they'll be rather similar in terms of image quality and everyday use.

It is the lens that counts most, and very good glass last a lifetime. Even if you changed body every 5 years you would still love to keep the best glass you may have invested in, so please consider this before you buy into any brand. You'll be married with that decision, mark my words.

IOW, IMO it is best to first choose the lenses you dream about. Then those baby steps may in time bring you closer to that dream

This is true, but also remember that not everyone will take their photography to the point where they're dropping the money for L or gold-ring glass. Some people stick with the consumer lenses and for them and their photography investing multiple thousand dollars in pro glass is not the best use for that money.

Also, you can't predict what lenses will come up in the future, so it is somewhat myopic to marry yourself to a system for a couple of dream lenses that will probably be outdated by the time you are able/skilled enough to afford them.

Lastly, in the big picture, lenses by Canon and Nikon are pretty much the same. They both have a very similar range of lenses give or take a few exotics, and the optical quality is essentially equal between the two (and this applies across the entire range, from the consumer glass to the pro stuff). The more important factor here is the camera system, the way a Nikon body handles, or the way that Canon implements their shooting menus, etc. The best glass in the world is not very useful if you spend all your time fighting the camera. We're lucky that Canon and Nikon produce top-notch lenses and bodies and you really can't go wrong with either, just choose which you feel is more comfortable to you. That includes not only physical handling but also working the menu systems, information in the viewfinder, changing settings, etc.

Ruahrc

 

[marioman38]

Pick up a second hand XTi, they've got 10.1mp, and a cleaning system, and won't break the bank

 

[dmmcintyre3]

<delete>

 

[wheezy]

Also, you can't predict what lenses will come up in the future, so it is somewhat myopic to marry yourself to a system for a couple of dream lenses that will probably be outdated by the time you are able/skilled enough to afford them.

Canon introduced the EOS system and lens mount in 1987. It shows no signs of going anywhere - you can bet on L glass being around awhile, and you can bet an L offering bought in 1987 will still perform fantastic on a 2009 body. Nikon, on the other hand, fell right into this situation with the line devotion to DX and then the recent release of FF - incompatibility and poor IQ abounds. Lenses designed for a crop sensor perform poorly on FF.

Lastly, in the big picture, lenses by Canon and Nikon are pretty much the same. They both have a very similar range of lenses give or take a few exotics, and the optical quality is essentially equal between the two (and this applies across the entire range, from the consumer glass to the pro stuff).

Good point - personally though, I find Canon's distinction in their naming convention an awful lot easier to follow. If it's L, it's solid. Take for example, a very popular, very solid lens by Canon:

70-200 F2.8L IS - Or, the Nikon equivalent (I think...)
AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED

Uhhhhh. Yeah. I like L. It's pretty simple. Not to say you can't learn the Nikon naming convention, but Canon hasn't fiddled around with their lens lineup like Nikon did. If you buy L, it's going to look good on FF or crop.

The more important factor here is the camera system, the way a Nikon body handles, or the way that Canon implements their shooting menus, etc. The best glass in the world is not very useful if you spend all your time fighting the camera. We're lucky that Canon and Nikon produce top-notch lenses and bodies and you really can't go wrong with either, just choose which you feel is more comfortable to you. That includes not only physical handling but also working the menu systems, information in the viewfinder, changing settings, etc.

Despite my opinions on Nikon, I can't argue that one is ultimately better than the other. They're both on the top of the game, you can't really 'go wrong' with one or the other, I just think Canon has the whole experience tightened up more than Nikon does.

 

[wheezy]

i only use one lens. 30mm 1.4
it is made in both canon and nikon mounts.

I never used the 6 fps.

That still makes zero sense to me.

I sold my Acura with leather and a 220HP V6 for the smaller, less expensive Hyundai with a 4 cyl. It doesn't really matter though, they both take gas and I only go 55mph.

What's to say that you'll never try another lens that would be nice to have AF on? Or need that 6fps burst for something? Maybe you won't.... I just find your logic in downsizing very very weird.

 

[wheezy]

Sorry if I'm being a jerk tonight.

To the OP - I wouldn't jump on a D40, get something else... anything else from either offering. Go hold them and check out the menus, see which fit better in your hands and in your workflow. I wouldn't cripple yourself with a dated, sub-standard offering despite the cost. Save a little longer and get a lot more camera out of your purchase.

 

[pilotkid]

I've got the D40x and absolutely LOVE it. I dont get to use it as much as I'd like but it amazes me every time I do. The picture quality is amazing!

 

[romanaz]

Sorry if I'm being a jerk tonight.

To the OP - I wouldn't jump on a D40, get something else... anything else from either offering. Go hold them and check out the menus, see which fit better in your hands and in your workflow. I wouldn't cripple yourself with a dated, sub-standard offering despite the cost. Save a little longer and get a lot more camera out of your purchase.

I agree. The D40 is tempting because its cheap, but theres a reason for that. A D60 or the XS/XSi/T1i.

Neither will let you down. I still think the D60's lack of autofocus motor and ergonomics are below the Canon's, but that is my opinion. Pick them up. If your looking to save money, hit up the D60 or XS, the XSi/T1i might not be worth it as a beginner. Granted I grew out of my XSi rather quickly, but thats a different story.

 

[Clix Pix]

Don't worry about the sensor cleaning and the lack or presence of a built-in system -- all you need is a Rocket Blower for at-home treatments and if something yucky does manage to get stuck on the sensor, then take it to a camera shop for a professional cleaning. End of story. Your primary concern should be the camera system, whether it be Nikon or Canon, and the lenses which will help you to get where you want to be in terms of creativity and photography.

Handle the camera bodies in your current budget range. Which feels best to you? Look at the lens options available (even though at this time you are probably not going to be ready to buy anything). Think about what you want to shoot. In the beginning you aren't necessarily going to be able to nail down specifics and that is OK. As time goes on and you work with your new camera, whatever it is, you will begin to see that you want x lens or y lens for this or that particular purpose.

Buy whatever camera body feels right to you at this time with the kit lens that seems as though it will suit your purpose for the next little while and then just get out there and start shooting!

 

[AlaskaMoose]

There are a few Canon L lenses that aren't very expensive considering built quality. For example:

EF 70-200mm f/4L (around $600.00)
EF 200mm f/2.8L USM (about the same price)
EF 135mm f/2L

UNDER $1K:
EF 17-40 f/4L
EF 28-70 f/2.8L

Then there are several outstanding lenses that fall between $400.00 and $600.00. These may not have L glass, but are nearly as good in all respects. For example the EF macro, MP-E, and tilt-ship lenses from 50mm to 100mm. Also:
EF 20mm f/2.8 (less than $400.00)
EF 28mm f/1.8
EF 50mm f/1.4, and 85mm f/1.8
EF 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus