Canon 40D or Nikon D90. Help needed

Is the D90 similar to the 50D in IQ etc?

I know Nikon people will say buy Nikon and Canon people will say Canon!! lol

Going to make a purchase of either tomorrow as wife wont be with me and both prices similar - ish, 50D £480, D90 £450..........Body only.
 
I now been offered a 40D for £300, body only!!! Talk about opening the flood gates!!!

So to recap:

50D £480,
D90 £450
40D £300..........All Body only

Which one?????????
 
Last edited:
Anthony, I know you only have limited budget and want a best buy on the camera but I find it you keep repeating a question all the time on which camera to buy best. I think you realise that you getting mix opinion base on the user experience on here.

The camera is only a tool to take images, good images is down to us to composite the picture and nail it down to produce good images.

A good photography can produce a good images from either a 40D, 50D and D90.

Personally would suggest getting the 50D or D90 because the technology is slightly newer and offer better ISO performance etc. Since you going to spend the money now you might as well get something abit newer.

Also Glass is important as well so is something you need to think about as well.
 
cam1986 said:
Is the D90 similar to the 50D in IQ etc?

I know Nikon people will say buy Nikon and Canon people will say Canon!! lol

Going to make a purchase of either tomorrow as wife wont be with me and both prices similar - ish, 50D £480, D90 £450..........Body only.
Click to expand...

They will be similar. Slightly different colour and contrast rendition, but overall not that much difference.
The main determining factor in IQ (assuming good technique) is the lens.
 
I have read that to get the best from a 50D you have to buy the best lenses? Seen this on a review at CameraLabs and other places.

Others have said that the 50D is not that much of a worthy upgrade from a 40D!! The ISO being one factor. I know the 50D has a lot of new upgrades but i am trying to work out the best bang for my buck. Buying a 50D for £480 i would then be spending around £80 on a 50mm 1.8 bringing the total to £560.

The 40D with the 50mm would come to £380. Is that false economy?

The D90 with a 50mm would be around £550

So, rather than diving in i am just trying to make sure i will be buying the right one. The 50D and D90 would come with some warranty which is a good idea. I would have to take a risk on the 40D but i am willing to do so if i can convince myself it is the right one to go for.

Having handled all 3 i can say i liked them all!! Canon/Nikon, doesn't matter to me.

IQ is important, low light photography is important. Budget is 'Very' important.

Sorry for going over old ground.
 
I think we discuss all this before, cost, ISO, performance etc.

If budget is important than go for the 40D since is cheap and is under £400. No question, and is still a good camera.

If low light performance is important then go for 50D and D90 because the high ISO it offer.

I'm not trying to be harsh but you have to choose one of the other, when you choose one you will sacrified something.

use this to compare spec:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_40D-vs-Canon_EOS_50D

I'm not saying is 100% correct but it gives you an idea and something to think over the camers you want to compare and buy. Take it as reference only.
 
Last edited:
badboy1984 said:
I think we discuss all this before, cost, ISO, performance etc.

If budget is important than go for the 40D since is cheap and is under £400. No question, and is still a good camera.

If low light performance is important then go for 50D and D90 because the high ISO it offer.

I'm not trying to be harsh but you have to choose one of the other, when you choose one you will sacrified something.

use this to compare spec:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_40D-vs-Canon_EOS_50D

I'm not saying is 100% correct but it gives you an idea and something to think over the camers you want to compare and buy. Take it as reference only.
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks for that link, also, if i went for the D90 would the Nikon 50mm F1.8D AF Nikkor Lens be the one to go for? I just love primes!!
 
Last edited:
cam1986 said:
Ok, thanks for that link, also, if i went for the D90 would the Nikon 50mm F1.8D AF Nikkor Lens be the one to go for? I just love primes!!
Click to expand...

Primes are great however a 50mm lens on an aps sensor = an 80 mm lens in full frame terms. This is rather long except for portraiture.

I am more comfortable with a 24mm or 28mm as a walk about prime. (=38mm or 45mm ) Both are available as F2,8 or better.
 
The nikkor 35mm f/1.8 DX is generally regarded as excellent for a crop sensor.

Like I said earlier, this is one of nikon's gems that canon don't have an equivalent too (they have a great 35mm f/2, but this is more expensive because it's EF not EF-s)
 
squishy said:
The nikkor 35mm f/1.8 DX is generally regarded as excellent for a crop sensor.

Like I said earlier, this is one of nikon's gems that canon don't have an equivalent too (they have a great 35mm f/2, but this is more expensive because it's EF not EF-s)
Click to expand...

The Canon 35mm f/2 price has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's EF or EFS. The price is simply down to the quality of the lens as a whole.
 
cam1986 said:
I have read that to get the best from a 50D you have to buy the best lenses? Seen this on a review at CameraLabs and other places.

Others have said that the 50D is not that much of a worthy upgrade from a 40D!! The ISO being one factor. I know the 50D has a lot of new upgrades but i am trying to work out the best bang for my buck. Buying a 50D for £480 i would then be spending around £80 on a 50mm 1.8 bringing the total to £560.

The 40D with the 50mm would come to £380. Is that false economy?

The D90 with a 50mm would be around £550

So, rather than diving in i am just trying to make sure i will be buying the right one. The 50D and D90 would come with some warranty which is a good idea. I would have to take a risk on the 40D but i am willing to do so if i can convince myself it is the right one to go for.

Having handled all 3 i can say i liked them all!! Canon/Nikon, doesn't matter to me.

IQ is important, low light photography is important. Budget is 'Very' important.

Sorry for going over old ground.
Click to expand...

Buy the one that feels most comfortable in your hands, after all you will be holding it.
It will be the camera you find has the most intuitive button layout and control menu.
The price will be suited to your budget.

Don't forget to include in the budget a memory card and a bag if not included in a package.

Remember all the cameras can take good picture's, it is you however that make them great.

Never buy on the basis of other people saying "this one is great". It may be for them but not always for you. Buying a camera is a very personal choice.
 
odd jim said:
The Canon 35mm f/2 price has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's EF or EFS. The price is simply down to the quality of the lens as a whole.
Click to expand...

I think it does have to do with it being a full format lens.
It's priced in the same range as the nikkor 35 f/2 which is a full format lens.

The nikkor 35 f/1.8 is very sharp, has more aperture blades, a silent wave motor and is a third of a stop faster. You'll have a hard job arguing that the canon 35 f/2.0 is better on crop sensor bodies.
I'm sure it's a very nice lens (indeed I'm considering getting one myself sometime), but the only reason I can see for it being priced higher is that it's full format.
 
Last edited:
squishy said:
I think it does have to do with it being a full format lens.
It's priced in the same range as the nikkor 35 f/2 which is a full format lens.

The nikkor 35 f/1.8 is very sharp, has more aperture blades, a silent wave motor and is a third of a stop faster. You'll have a hard job arguing that the canon 35 f/2.0 is better on crop sensor bodies.
I'm sure it's a very nice lens (indeed I'm considering getting one myself sometime), but the only reason I can see for it being priced higher is that it's full format.
Click to expand...

But if you think about it, a prime on crop format shouldn't cost anymore than a full format lens. All they'd do is move the elements backwards which is why Canon have only made the 60mm Macro as a crop only. There is little cost benefit in creating crop only primes.
 
Last edited:
Some very good reviews on the 50mm 1.8D Nikon lens. Supposed to be a real cracker. I don't think the nifty fifty is the same quality wise from what i have read.
 
odd jim said:
But if you think about it, a prime on crop format shouldn't cost anymore than a full format lens. All they'd do is move the elements backwards which is why Canon have only made the 60mm Macro as a crop only. There is little cost benefit in creating crop only primes.
Click to expand...

No, the lens can be designed to project a smaller image circle.
What else about the 35mm f/2 EF would mean it is more expensive? In all other areas it is either as good as or not quite as good as the nikkor 35mm f/1.8



Anthony, the canon nifty fifty is great for cheap image quality. Not much to choose between it and the nikkor 50 f/1.8D. The nikkor is built better but won't AF on lower end bodies (hence the recent addition of the 50 f/1.8G, but don't worry about that, the D90 has a built in AF motor)
 
Last edited:
Guys, can we keep the thread on subject please!! lol
 
squishy said:
No, the lens can be designed to project a smaller image circle.
What else about the 35mm f/2 EF would mean it is more expensive? In all other areas it is either as good as or not quite as good as the nikkor 35mm f/1.8

Anthony, the canon nifty fifty is great for cheap image quality. Not much to choose between it and the nikkor 50 f/1.8D. The nikkor is built better but won't AF on lower end bodies (hence the recent addition of the 50 f/1.8G, but don't worry about that, the D90 has a built in AF motor)
Click to expand...

The smaller image circle comes from moving the rear element closer to the sensor. Granted in doing so the lens needs less glass, but there's not much glass in either lens comparatively speaking.

Optically the Canon is (supposedly) better but the Nikon is a tiny weeeny bit faster but has much better focusing.

OP apologies but i thought It's still on topic as we are discussing the merits of both the relative 35mm primes which (as you said you wanted primes) is highly relevant, lol!!
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
The smaller image circle comes from moving the rear element closer to the sensor.

Optically the Canon is (supposedly) better but the Nikon is a tiny weeeny bit faster but has much better focusing.

It's still on topic as we are discussing the merits of both the relative 35mm primes which (as you said you wanted primes) is highly relevant, lol!!
Click to expand...

Not really as i have to get the camera first!!!!! lol :LOL:
 
PsiFox said:
So it's down to control/menu layout and cost then:)
Click to expand...

Cost is a massive factor as my wife has my tackle in one hand while i have the credit card in the other!! If i spend too much it doesnt bear thinking about!! lol
 
cam1986 said:
Not really as i have to get the camera first!!!!! lol :LOL:
Click to expand...

But does the suitability of the lenses effect that decision? It did when I was trying to chose a system. And aside from some technical aspects squishy has a point, the Nikon 35mm is as good as the Canon but cheaper, so if you wanted a 35mm prime, a Mark in favour to Nikon.

Sorry just tying to help!
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
But does the suitability if the lenses effect that decision? It did when I was trying to chose a system.

Sorry just tying to help!
Click to expand...

Indeed, the lens makes the image. The camera just records it.
Since you seem to be struggling to come to a decision between the two brands, differences in the lens line up could help you decide :)
 
I know and Nikon are swaying me in that direction at the mo. 40D sounds great, nice price etc. D90, newer tech, better ISO, awesome primes...........£100+ more
D50, lot of money for just the body! IQ same as 40D
 
cam1986 said:
I know and Nikon are swaying me in that direction at the mo. 40D sounds great, nice price etc. D90, newer tech, better ISO, awesome primes...........£100+ more
D50, lot of money for just the body! IQ same as 40D
Click to expand...

IQ is mainly down to the lens, with modern DSLRs it's only really at high ISOs you see a difference.

If it's IQ that worries you you really should concentrate on the lenses!
 
sounds like you want uber cheap offer with new technology and good lens to go along. Thats why you keep mention about 40D being alot cheaper compare to 50D and D90. After reading all your post, it seems like you already made decision on the Nikon D90 but you fail to convince yourself to spend the money on that.

just buy the D90 and a prime and you will be one happy man.
 
Thought you were going to make the purchase today??
 
odd jim said:
Thought you were going to make the purchase today??
Click to expand...

Yea, went to camera shop but the D90 wasn't there!! It was in another branch :crying: They are making sure it is in branch by wed. Thing is, that gives me more time to ponder!! lol

They did offer me a D80 with under 1k actuations for £250. Body only! :D I was tempted.

Is the 18-105 VR lens a good one?

Shop said i could have the D90 and the the 18-105 for £480
 
Last edited:
It's good enough to start with!
 
D90 plus 18-105 VR for £480 is a good deal man.

The D90 body on its own cost around £400-450 second hand, since that 18-105 is a VR i'm sure it doesn't worth £30 only lol. Is better then a 18-55 kit lens.

The D90 was gone today means something ......... is a good camera. Personally i won't get the D80 you were offer, just grab the D90 lol.
 
I wouldn't take the D80. It's cracking value for most things, but the older CCD sensor puts it firmly behind all the newer nikons for noise control.
That D90 deal sounds very good. Just snap it up quick or you'll regret missing it.
 
badboy1984 said:
D90 plus 18-105 VR for £480 is a good deal man.

The D90 body on its own cost around £400-450 second hand, since that 18-105 is a VR i'm sure it doesn't worth £30 only lol. Is better then a 18-55 kit lens.

The D90 was gone today means something ......... is a good camera. Personally i won't get the D80 you were offer, just grab the D90 lol.
Click to expand...

The D90 hasn't gone. It was in the wrong branch

How much is a 18-105 VR worth 2nd hand or is it worth keeping as i am after a prime really
 
the 18-105 VR brand new is around £220 ish, maybe abit lower, i use Jacob price as reference. The lens is pretty good for walk around lens, it give you that extra reach when needed or that litte wide angle when you needed as well. Grab the D90 + the Vr lens and then get the 50mm prime and you will be fine for alot of things you want to shoot.

I know what you going to say about the budget and best buy etc. But that offer is the best buy already lol
 
Well had an email when i got home from work from the camera shop to say that the shop that had the D90 sold it at close today!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am really annoyed, what idiots.

Back to square one now. Wife said everything happens for a reason!
 
Last edited:
Shops can be bad places for advice ... they tend to offer what the want/need to sell. or what will make them the most money/commission.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top