Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Nikon D90 and D40 about the same?

SchneiderMan

SchneiderMan

macrumors G3
Original poster
May 25, 2008
8,332
202
I own the D40 and im not happy at all with its performance in night shoots and i think its just a fancy point and shoot quality..
Now im looking to get the D90 but i really dont want it to be like or in the range of the D40. Im thinking its just for noobs too like the D40? Am i wrong about this?
What i really want to know if its better then the D40/D60 group.
Thanks for your help on this.

EDIT: i got a new lens, Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM

30077942173b26682cf9uc0.jpg


Big thanks to all the great members here!
 
Get the Nikkor 50mm f1.8!

Its way more cheaper and the perfect solution to your problems. The main reason someone buys an SLR is for its interchangeable lenses! You buy the D90 or the D700 or the D3.. it'll all be same unless you get a fast prime lens!

The D90 has many features... more AF points, better ISO performance, built in motor for AF! I forgot video capturing... but the feature is as good as worth getting forgotten!
 
Low light shooting is really all about the lens. High ISO only helps so much. You need fast glass. Get a lens that has the widest aperture you can afford. For the D40, you'll probably want to get the 50mm f/1.4, since the cheaper f/1.8 version will not auto-focus on that camera body.
 
The lenses i have right now are the kit lens 18-55mm nikkor and a 55-200mm nikkor.

So its worth getting a 50mm lens? ii dont know anything about 50mm lenses, basically the 50mm lens would be like my 18-55 when its in full zoom?
Im reading that the D90 only has ll-af points? (2?) lol i just bought a magazine..
So my D40 is about the same as the D90? just get a better lens and im set?
thanks guys

And $1000 for a lens is too much for me to spend haha
 
Yes thats pretty much it!

Both the lenses you currently own are 'slow' lenses.... if you look at the lens fronts carefully.. you'll note something like: 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 and something similar on the 55-200.

The problem here is that the 18-55 gives you an aperture (its a light gate in the lens... lesser the no. more open the gate is.. meaning more light can enter) of f5.6 at 50mm while the prime lenses mentioned above give you f1.4 at 50mm... translation.. about 6 to 8 times more light can enter... meaning.. you get shutter speeds upto ~4 to 6 times faster than what you get for the kit lens in the same lighting condition..

Also.. the primes (single focal length) are way more superior to similarly priced zooms in terms of IQ!
 
The D90 is in a completely different league compared to the d40. The D40...as you said, "fancy P&S".

For night photography...fast glass and a *good* tripod for long exposures is the answer. Another approach would be
the most beneficial of all...study light and how to control it. strobist.com is a gold mine of information.
 
Great thanks guys, now for day shooting hands down the D90 is better by more then double? I really want to get better more pro looking pictures in daylight. D40 isnt really doing it after more then a year. For now im getting the 50mm nikkor glass :D
 
D90 is better in every thing except Image Quality...

So anyone who says... an expensive DSLR gets better images... you say HUSH HUSH

Get a good lens like the 16-85 or the 17-55 if you can afford it. It'll do magic I tell you. Think about upgrading when you have a good collection of glass first.. since IMAGE QUALITY is a priority and not fancy useless features...
 
jaduffy108 said:
The D90 is in a completely different league compared to the d40. The D40...as you said, "fancy P&S".

For night photography...fast glass and a *good* tripod for long exposures is the answer.
Click to expand...

LOL While the D90 is much nicer than the D40 (it is newer and cost a hell of a lot more--so it should), the D40 is a lot more than just a fancy P&S. Well it is more if someone knows what they are doing. People are quick to blame the camera for their crappy pictures when 99% of the time it is the person behind the camera who is the problem.
 
hogfaninga said:
LOL While the D90 is much nicer than the D40 (it is newer and cost a hell of a lot more--so it should), the D40 is a lot more than just a fancy P&S. Well it is more if someone knows what they are doing. People are quick to blame the camera for their crappy pictures when 99% of the time it is the person behind the camera who is the problem.
Click to expand...

I can say that you are wrong about one thing, just because the D90 cost a little more and i mean little and because its newer doesnt mean it would be better, nor other slr.
Now your right about experience but i do think im capable of using my D40 up to now. Now i dont know if others would agree with me.
ISo i am right that the D90 is about the same as the D40 in image quality, i hoped not.
I would say appleink has alot of experience with cameras here. thanks again
 
SchneiderMan said:
I can say that you are wrong about one thing, just because the D90 cost a little more and i mean little and because its newer doesnt mean it would be better, nor other slr.
Now your right about experience but i do think im capable of using my D40 up to now. Now i dont know if others would agree with me.
ISo i am right that the D90 is about the same as the D40 in image quality, i hoped not.
Click to expand...

I'm not wrong. The D90 costs about $600 more (I know you can't buy the D40 without the kit, but that is about the difference). That is quite a bit of difference in price. The D90 is much better in almost every important category (not all) as it should be considering it is much much newer and costs more.

Now if you are a point and shoot person or don't know how to use those gains to your advantage then Ink is right it really doesn't matter about the body. If you do know how to use it for all it is worth then what I said is correct.

That being said either camera can produce excellent pictures.
 
Christ, there is some terrible advice in this thread.

First off, he's a point and shoot user. I'm assuming he's using the D40 on auto mode. That means that the 50mm f/1.8, which won't autofocus on his D40, will blow his mind.

Secondly, the D90 is not even in the same ballpark as the D40. They aren't "about the same." The D90 is so much better. High ISO, image quality, focus capabilities, its all leaps and bounds better. JPG image processing will also be much improved.

If you can afford the D90, get it. Its a much better camera. If you just want faster glass, look at the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF-S G. Both will autofocus on your camera, they're about $400 retail and will let you shoot at night with much greater ease.
 
taylorwilsdon said:
Christ, there is some terrible advice in this thread.

First off, he's a point and shoot user. I'm assuming he's using the D40 on auto mode. That means that the 50mm f/1.8, which won't autofocus on his D40, will blow his mind.

Secondly, the D90 is not even in the same ballpark as the D40. They aren't "about the same." The D90 is so much better. High ISO, image quality, focus capabilities, its all leaps and bounds better. JPG image processing will also be much improved.

If you can afford the D90, get it. Its a much better camera. If you just want faster glass, look at the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF-S G. Both will autofocus on your camera, they're about $400 retail and will let you shoot at night with much greater ease.
Click to expand...

Yes even I recommend the 50mm f1.4 since its autofocus or the newer AF-S 50mm f1.8 !
And clearly the chap is really interested in photography... his main aim should be to gather up more glass than a better body. He has a DSLR (with way less features) and he has a $1000 to spend... the answer is clear as crystal.. get glass and get a new camera later. Because ultimately even he gets the D90 after spending a whole load... its pretty useless! And using a 55-200.. a $150 lens on a $1500 body is.. er.. how should I put it.. LAUGHABLE!

Besides.. completely irrespective of the current situation... in your own language.. you'd suggest a $1500 camera to a pns user... who equally makes the camera a pns ???? o_O
 
taylorwilsdon said:
Christ, there is some terrible advice in this thread.

First off, he's a point and shoot user. I'm assuming he's using the D40 on auto mode. That means that the 50mm f/1.8, which won't autofocus on his D40, will blow his mind.

Secondly, the D90 is not even in the same ballpark as the D40. They aren't "about the same." The D90 is so much better. High ISO, image quality, focus capabilities, its all leaps and bounds better. JPG image processing will also be much improved.

If you can afford the D90, get it. Its a much better camera. If you just want faster glass, look at the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF-S G. Both will autofocus on your camera, they're about $400 retail and will let you shoot at night with much greater ease.
Click to expand...

The only mode i dont use is the Auto mode lol, i thought the D90 would be better but wasnt really sure that why i came here. now i want to move on from the d40 because i dont feel its right for me anymore and i want to move to a better slr.. I use the manuel focus alot because my d40 isnt the best for autofocus sometimes. I know the d90 has better iso im just afraid nikon would treat it like the d60 family, they came out with the d40x and later called it the d60 basically. Thanks
like i said ill be getting the nikkor 50mm f/1.4 af

edit, apple ink
Does the kit lens with the d90 a good choice or would it be better to just get the body and add a better lens?
Amazon has the body for about $800 now and it will get lower in time. I got my d40 when it was $600 lol
Maybe ill go crazy and get a d300 and be done with it later on haha
thanks!
 
SchneiderMan said:
The only mode i dont use is the Auto mode lol, i thought the D90 would be better but wasnt really sure that why i came here. now i want to move on from the d40 because i dont feel its right for me anymore and i want to move to a better slr.. I use the manuel focus alot because my d40 isnt the best for autofocus sometimes. I know the d90 has better iso im just afraid nikon would treat it like the d60 family, they came out with the d40x and later called it the d60 basically. Thanks
like i said ill be getting the nikkor 50mm f/1.4 af

edit, apple ink
Does the kit lens with the d90 a good choice or would it be better to just get the body and add a better lens? thanks!
Click to expand...

The Nikon D90 ships with the Nikkor 18-105mm. Its definitely better than the 18-55 but I do find a problem with CA..... Very high sharpness and excellent resolution..... In all very good lens. Much better than 18-55. Also consider the Nikkor 18-70. The 16-85 is even better and really expensive. Google all and read reviews and decide for yourself!

But I do think the 18-105 is a fine lens for your usage..
 
Apple Ink said:
The Nikon D90 ships with the Nikkor 18-105mm. Its definitely better than the 18-55 but I do find a problem with CA..... Very high sharpness and excellent resolution..... In all very good lens. Much better than 18-55. Also consider the Nikkor 18-70. The 16-85 is even better and really expensive. Google all and read reviews and decide for yourself!

But I do think the 18-105 is a fine lens for your usage..
Click to expand...

Thanks i think i made up my mind, i really like that 18-105mm lens; last question would you say that the D90 is a professional level camera? maybe like the
D80
I see nikon doesnt call the D90 a professional camera
 
SchneiderMan said:
Thanks i think i made up my mind, i really like that 18-105mm lens; last question would you say that the D90 is a professional level camera? maybe like the D80
Click to expand...

It definitely isnt for beginners or casual hobbyists.. neither do you expect them to pay $1300 for a camera...

But you should keep in mind.. even the D90 doesnt have a built in motor.. meaning the old 50mm 1.8 is still manual focus.. for a built in AF motor... your only option is the D300 and above! But I do believe Nikon has some good new lenses without the need for inbuilt AF motor. Besides you always have Tamron and Sigma and Tokina, though these should be your second priority after Nikkors....

In the end.. the decision is yours!
 
Like the D80, the D90 is a consumer camera. You have to pay a lot more for a professional quality camera. That doesn't mean the D90 isn't capable. Build wise it still has a plastic shell. The D100, D200, D300, D700, and Nikons higher pro cameras are made of magnesium alloy and not plastic.
 
Apple Ink said:
It definitely isnt for beginners or casual hobbyists.. neither do you expect them to pay $1300 for a camera...

But you should keep in mind.. even the D90 doesnt have a built in motor.. meaning the old 50mm 1.8 is still manual focus.. for a built in AF motor... your only option is the D300 and above! But I do believe Nikon has some good new lenses without the need for inbuilt AF motor. Besides you always have Tamron and Sigma and Tokina, though these should be your second priority after Nikkors....

In the end.. the decision is yours!
Click to expand...

I take it you don't own a Nikon or know too much about them. The D90 does have a built in motor. Which means it can af the 50mm 1.8. It also has those fancy scene modes for the beginner. It is great for someone's first dslr if they got the money and take pics of their kids.
 
Hahaha i dont take pics of kids :D
Im thinking its still a beginner slr and i thought for that price it shouldnt be..
 
SchneiderMan said:
Hahaha i dont take pics of kids :D
Click to expand...

I could careless, but thanks for the info.. Hahaha

Of course it can do way more than that. It is great for sports, active kids, well almost anything. It is a nice camera. That being said I don't care what you do. I just want the correct info to be presented for others and the D90 has a built in AF motor.
 
Apple Ink said:
No I'm sorry for my ignorance but being a Canon EOS system user that I am... I am by mercy of God pardoned all these ridiculous errs that Nikon has...

And a minute ago... this is what you said in another thread... contrary I believe..

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/7004385/
Click to expand...

That is right. The D90 has a built in motor, but it can't use older legacy lenses like the D300 can. It is a big reason many choose the D300 over the D90.

I misread what you meant on that thread. I thought you meant legacy lenses since the OP in that thread mentioned he had a legacy lens.

I don't even try to learn all the stupid Canon errrrs.
 
I recently borrowed my friend's D90 for a concert. I currently own a D40, and I can say the D90 is way better than D40. With my same set of skills, I am able to produce far better quality pictures from a D90 than from a D40.

Put it this way, D90 makes it easier for one to produce great image while D40 may require further post processing to get there.

These are the pics I took from D90: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dshleung/sets/72157612931769946/

The rest of them in my photostream are D40 :p

dL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back