Upgrade From D40

Steven001

Steven001

Messages
1,531
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys,

I have a wedding coming (my mums) where I'm the photographer. Now I've not been shooting as much lately as I used to, but it's given me a boost and motivation to start shooting again. If the wedding goes well, then I'm going to consider upgrading my D40 to something better.

I'm getting £300 from some family for my 21st (2 weeks) and thinking about putting it towards a new camera. That money, and the sale of my D40 should hopefully be around £500, but if I could spend less than that would be preferred.

The reason for wanting to upgrade is lack of AF motor - I've been looking at some lenses - 50mm 1.8 and some others, but they won't AF on the D40. Also I would like to start Gig photography and I don't think the D40 would work too well with low light conditions.

I originally thought D80 or D3000 but apparently the D80 is very poor in low light, but the built in AF-motor is appealing! What about D200 or D90? Haven't really looked at those but ideally wouldn't want to spend that much.

Cheers,
Steven
 
I wouldn't think of the D3000 unless your D40 is broken; and don't ever contemplate the D5000 that's just one stupidly positioned body.

The D200 is a great camera, but it isn't ideal for ISO over 400, it gets very noisy; while the D90 is far superior in that field.

The thing is, I don't see many D90 coming into the 2nd-hand market; and the price of a new D90 is a bit over the price range you've set aside for this, but if you can get the D90 then that would be a perfect upgrade for you .. in my opinion.
 
Or...

How about getting a 35/1.8 and a Tamron 90/2.8 macro lens?

You'd then have something better for low light, portrait, and macro.

If you do go for the Tamron, make sure it's the new one with an in-lens motor.
 
I'd say keep saving and buy a D90 when you can afford it. I would suggest that anything else would barely be an upgrade from the excellent camera that you already have.

The D90 body is £650 at Jessops, and if you use Quidco you'll get 8% cashback bringing it down to around £610.
 
budfox said:
I'd say keep saving and buy a D90 when you can afford it. I would suggest that anything else would barely be an upgrade from the excellent camera that you already have.

The D90 body is £650 at Jessops, and if you use Quidco you'll get 8% cashback bringing it down to around £610.
Click to expand...

I went from a d40 to a d80 then d90.

I didnt have the d80 for long as i immediately preordered the d90.

Having basically gone from a d40 to d90 I would say its the best thing photography wise I have ever done. Its an excellent camera and works great in low light.

Also the menus/dials etc are positioned well.

I love it and the only upward step for me will be the d700 whe i become brave!
 
Don't touch the Nikon D200, the battery life is rubbish and it doesn't have sensor self clean and everything is menu driven. I upgraded from the D70s to D200 now the D300 and its the best yet in all departments, the big advantage is the main controls have been put onto the body so you don't have to dive into the menu ever couple of minutes. As it looks as if it is being phased out in faavour of the D300s now might be a good time to get a bargain. I can highly recommend the D300.

realspeed
 
As you know I use the D200, have done a small number of weddings and think the camera was brilliant. I dont think it is menu driven at all, all the settings are close the hand and really quick to change, much quicker than your current D40. The batterylife will easily last a full day, more than enough for a wedding but obviously a spare battery if a wise idea for any camera. As said the only thing that lets it down is the noise over 400ISO but i'd happily use anything up to 800 ISO without too much of a worry. So long as you have a fast-ish lens you should be ok. 50mm f/1.8 or perhaps rent a 70-200 f/2.8 from lensesforhire.com.

I'd love a D300 for the noise capability but, i'm saving for a D700!
 
realspeed said:
Don't touch the Nikon D200, the battery life is rubbish and it doesn't have sensor self clean and everything is menu driven. I upgraded from the D70s to D200 now the D300 and its the best yet in all departments, the big advantage is the main controls have been put onto the body so you don't have to dive into the menu ever couple of minutes. As it looks as if it is being phased out in faavour of the D300s now might be a good time to get a bargain. I can highly recommend the D300.

realspeed
Click to expand...

I beg to differ!

Battery life suffers only if you use flash and VR a lot. I've had my D200 for just about a year, and battery would last me a good whole weekend without draining. That's shooting a good couple thousand shots :shrug:

On the flip side, with the GPS on my D700, battery barely lasts 1/2 a day of shooting.

It's all down to how much "strain" you put on it. As I don't, and never, use flash, and my lens is primarily the 24-70 AF-S or the manual focus Voigtlander 58 I find battery life perfect otherwise.

As for menu driven! If you don't mind me asking, what buttons do you have on the D300 that weren't available on the D200? From what I recall, they were pretty much identical :shrug:

My reason for not recommending the D200 is purely for the ISO noise at 800 and above; bar that, it would be a perfect camera for the needs of the OP.
 
Wail said:
I beg to differ!
Click to expand...

:plus1: The D200 was until recently Nikon's semi-pro body!

...though I'd still recommend looking at lens options first, or you'll have a body with more bells and whistles but still only the 18-55 and 55-200.
 
acs said:
...though I'd still recommend looking at lens options first, or you'll have a body with more bells and whistles but still only the 18-55 and 55-200.
Click to expand...

:plus1:

Maybe a Tamron 17-50, I think the latest pre VC models have a built in motor.

Have you had a chance to scout the venue to get an idea of what the lighting conditions might be like.
 
I've just gone from a D40 to a D90. The D90 is a more rewarding camera to use, especially in the autofocus department, but to be honest, the images are only subtly better than a D40 in most situations.

I find the D40 @ ISO 1600 = D90 @ ISO 3200 noise-wise, so you do gain one stop with the D90. However, for gig photos in low light you're better off keeping the D40 and spending the money on a low-light lens, either 35mm f/1.8 AF-S (good all-rounder, normal/slight tele length) or the 50mm f/1.4 AF-S (tele length on a D40, but faster than the 35mm, however longer length = more shake at slow shutter speeds and not as versatile).

I did a whole Glastonbury with the D40, a 18-200mm VR for daytime and length and the 35mm f/1.8 for night shots. Frankly I have no qualms about this kit and would probably use it again (the D90 being bigger, heavier and more expensive to lose/damage). I'm doing a local festival this weekend and am very tempted to leave the D90 at home. Plus the D40's battery life is phenomenal - 1500 shots at Glasto, VR on, reviewing the images regularly... one bar of battery used.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/martsharm/sets/72157621053263392/

Where I lost out with the D40 was its autofocus performance when not using the central area - it's simply not as accurate using the peripheral focus points so I have moved to a focus-and-recompose method using the central area. The D90 definitely beats the D40 in this regard with its 11-point AF and more advanced firmware.

To get the best shots in tricky light it's important to set the auto ISO correctly, I found 1/60 min shutter speed (with the VR lens even at 200mm) and max ISO 1600 gives the minimum shake and maximum image quality by increasing ISO when necessary, but only when necessary. I used full manual in the dark at night. I've never dared use Hi 1 on the D40.

It really depends on your attitude to noise: if you're looking for noise from the D40 at high ISOs you'll find it, however would a layperson really notice it at all? Also converting to B&W will eliminate chroma noise.

Hope this helps!
 
I went from a D40X to D300 and the D300 is lovely!!! The ISO performance is brilliant compared to the D40X. The in-camera AF is a great feature as well.

The only bad thing I have heard about the D200 is that its not great for ISO performance, but the new range of Nikons are brilliant for higher ISO performance. EDIT - very good point made above - spend the money on good low light lenses as your camera will perform rather well ISO wise against some of the older ones.
 
I saw the camera for the first time on Saturday and thought it looked rather poor. It looked rather cheaply made, the older D40's look a lot better made. This is IMO and I did not pick it up.
 
Steven001 said:
Thanks for the info guys. After mentioning about a lens upgrade instead of a new body. I've thought about the Tamron SP AF 28-75mm and Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Macro - thoughts on these?
Click to expand...

(Caveat: I've never used either of those lenses.)

These are quite different lenses so you need to decide what you are going to be shooting.

From what you've said, gigs and weddings, the zoom is going to be far and away more versatile (not to take anything away from the quality of the 90mm).

The 90mm (135mm equiv) is pretty long, are you sure this would suit the situations you want to be shooting in? For instance, at a gig, if you get to the front (where you want to be for photography really) you will be restricted to close-ups of the band members rather than shots which cover more of the stage. I would find this quite restrictive.

Personally I prefer a dedicated low-light lens teamed with a slower but more versatile zoom for good light rather than one faster zoom with a restricted range for everything - but that's just me. Don't discount the 35mm f/1.8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top