D40 to D90 - could I really expect much more from the D90 ?

mikeyw

mikeyw

Messages
1,370
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm very happy with my D40 but am hearing norhing but excellent things about the D90.

I'm tempted to upgrade but what really am i going to find useful ? Off the top of my head i'd probably benefit most from :-

Better sensor
More FPS
Better ISO range
HD Movies
AF in Body
Excellent VR lens
Better cropping potential
Live view

The negs for me are :-

Larger
More storage needed

I wouldn't trade the D40 (it's so good) so effectively i'm looking at a £800 outlay.....convince me it's justified :thinking:

Tia,
Mike.
 
Weighing out the pros and cons... Get the d90.

But if youve grown attatched to your D40, Still keep it however, would be a shame to let go of it surely.

My friend just got a d90 a few days ago, meeting him tomorrow for a bit of shooting around the city / walk around with some other mates, should get a few decent pics I hope!

I must say I'd love to have a d90 but the 60 was all I could afford so I went for the 60.

My mate said his d90 cost 714£ exactly, If you like I could ask where he got it from if you wanna save a bit doe?
 
If you can afford it get the D90 and sell the D40 cant see the point in holding on to a camera if your not going to use it and I cant see why you would if you had the D90. Also the D90 is not that much bigger then D40.

What glass do you have for the D40 ?
 
i wnet from a d40 to a d80 and im glad i did, so im sure you'll be happy with the d90.
 
Snapper73 said:
If you can afford it get the D90 and sell the D40 cant see the point in holding on to a camera if your not going to use it and I cant see why you would if you had the D90. Also the D90 is not that much bigger then D40.

What glass do you have for the D40 ?
Click to expand...

I'd keep it for portability - just use the kit lens and 50mm prime on it although the 55-200mm tamron is in the post as we speak.
 
I'm going from the d40 (which I love) to the d90 for all the reasons you've listed but mainly to get improved dynamic range, improved iso performance (mostly for long landscape exposures) increased resolution, the ability to auto focus my nifty fifty.

Bottom line is image quality. I know people talk about upgrading glass first but I reckon the D40 has too many downsides (e.g no auto focus motor and poor iso performance etc) to really get the best out of good glass. The D90 is going to be my starting point for good glass investment

I have mine ordered for 550 quid which is the best price anywhere
 
I went from a D40 to a D90 in November and I haven't picked up my D40 since.

The D90 isn't much bigger than D40 at all and there isn't much difference in the weight either.

As mentioned above the ISO performance is so much better, I love how I can use normal AF lenses. Also the controls/buttons to change everything are great rather than drilling through the menus on the D40.
 
Ballgirl said:
The D90 isn't much bigger than D40 at all and there isn't much difference in the weight either.

As mentioned above the ISO performance is so much better, I love how I can use normal AF lenses. Also the controls/buttons to change everything are great rather than drilling through the menus on the D40.
Click to expand...

Snap! :D
 
Ballgirl said:
I went from a D40 to a D90 in November and I haven't picked up my D40 since.

The D90 isn't much bigger than D40 at all and there isn't much difference in the weight either.

As mentioned above the ISO performance is so much better, I love how I can use normal AF lenses. Also the controls/buttons to change everything are great rather than drilling through the menus on the D40.
Click to expand...

Ditto :D

It is a cracking camera, I moved from the D40x from it and haven't looked back...
 
I guess the question you should ask yourself (and answer honestly...) is how many shots have you missed on the D40 by not having the stuff you listed? Or how many extra shots would you actually take that you can't take now?

Plus is the D40 limiting your lens choices should you need to upgrade?
 
The only definate benefit is the AF in body - the others are just nice to haves....

Out of cam results from the 2 are probably pretty close as well.
 
I would only ever sell my D40 for a D300.

The D40 with good glass will produce superb images which would pretty much Indistinguishable from the higher end Nikons even at 18x12" print size.

The only thing I miss is Auto bracketing for HDRs.
 
Scotty B said:
I would only ever sell my D40 for a D300.

The D40 with good glass will produce superb images which would pretty much Indistinguishable from the higher end Nikons even at 18x12" print size.
Click to expand...


The D300 and d90 have virtually the same image quality. some even say it is better at high iso :shrug:
 
Ted said:
The D300 and d90 have virtually the same image quality. some even say it is better at high iso :shrug:
Click to expand...

RAWs out of the camera do indeed seem to be better from the D90 than the D300. It's not a huge surprise, it's a newer camera after all.

JPEGs aren't as good though, the D300 has a better pipeline for that.
 
my mate went from a D40x to the D90 and he is glad he made the jump..
 
I'm going to buy a D90 tomorrow, the reason? Much better ISO, better FPS, HD video :)woot:) and AF, so pretty much everything you mentioned.

It uses the same sensor as the D300, which is cool, as that's an amazing camera!
 
I have a d40 and am currently saving for a d300. Why? I doubt I would ever use the movie mode on the d90. The d300 is a weather sealed body, has higher fps for motorsport, 51 af points, 100% viewfinder, and af finetuning of lenses.
 
benwall said:
I'm going to buy a D90 tomorrow, the reason? Much better ISO, better FPS, HD video :)woot:) and AF, so pretty much everything you mentioned.

It uses the same sensor as the D300, which is cool, as that's an amazing camera!
Click to expand...

The bottom line though PQ - are you expecting any improvement ??
 
mikeyw said:
The only definate benefit is the AF in body - the others are just nice to haves....

Out of cam results from the 2 are probably pretty close as well.
Click to expand...

Would have to disagree with you here. The ISO performance difference is night and day. I can use my D300 (same sensor) at ISO1600 with no worries and 3200 at a push. The D40 couldn't get anywhere near that without huge amounts of noise.
 
One benefit that I make use of is the wireless commander mode with my D90 and SB-600. If you are going to make use of an external flash it's streets ahead of the D40. :)
 
Foggy said:
Would have to disagree with you here. The ISO performance difference is night and day. I can use my D300 (same sensor) at ISO1600 with no worries and 3200 at a push. The D40 couldn't get anywhere near that without huge amounts of noise.
Click to expand...

Have to agree there. Have taken a number of shots at 1600 ISO and been suitably impressed with the results from the D90.
 
Foggy said:
Would have to disagree with you here. The ISO performance difference is night and day. I can use my D300 (same sensor) at ISO1600 with no worries and 3200 at a push. The D40 couldn't get anywhere near that without huge amounts of noise.
Click to expand...

Fair enough - but how often would you shoot at 1600....surely most pics are taken at 800 and below ?
 
Ted said:
The D300 and d90 have virtually the same image quality. some even say it is better at high iso :shrug:
Click to expand...

truen but the D300 is weather sealed is it not? also faster FPS and 51-point focus.
 
Jest read Kenrockwell.com review of the D90 and he loves it - remarkably he still refuses to end his love affair with the wonderful D40 :)

What about the D40?

If money makes any difference, forget the D90. Digital cameras are a rich man's game. You don't need to spend $999 every other year just because Nikon or some web site says so. If I was on a budget and didn't shoot these cameras all day, every day, I'd never want anything other than the D40 for $499, complete with a great lens. I have no problem making great 20x30" prints from my D40 and its dinky kit lens.

The reason to buy a D90 is for the many subtle extra features, like a depth-of-field preview button, and for the better pictures in most picture-taking situations afforded by the Auto ADR feature, which is always on by default.
 
mikeyw said:
Jest read Kenrockwell.com review of the D90 and he loves it - remarkably he still refuses to end his love affair with the wonderful D40 :)
Click to expand...

Of course the D40 is still a good camera, there's no doubt about it however it is easily outgrown. For me it served its purpose well.
 
Ted said:
Is that in due to improved image quality or the convenience of the extra bells and whistles?
Click to expand...
the few extra meg may have swayed it a little but his dad has a d300 which is a little out his budget so the d90 is a nice mid way point..
 
The D40 was definately a good learning tool and for the price it can't be faulted.
 
Ballgirl said:
The D40 was definately a good learning tool and for the price it can't be faulted.
Click to expand...

definately

lighter and quieter in operation to my sony a300, but i like my a300 more ;-)
 
I've gone from a D50 to a D90 and haven't regretted it one bit. The resolution increase is negligible, but the main things I've noticed have been the higher ISO performance (I wouldn't touch ISO800 on my D50, but on my D90 I don't hesitate to go at least that high) and the much better usability...having nearly every oft-used function mapped to a physical button has made things so much more convenient and much quicker, as have little touches like the illuminated top LCD, the stunning 3" screen and greater range of customisation.

It's not a huge leap, but has certainly been an enjoyable one.
 
Get the D90. Im sure its worth the investment
 
I'm upgrading my D60 to a D90 mainly for the wider choice of lens, but then there's also the wireless flash, live view etc.

David
 
Ted said:
I have mine ordered for 550 quid which is the best price anywhere
Click to expand...

where was that from?
trying to find the cheapest price but cant find anything like that..also assuming that is just the body
 
I went from a D40 to a D90 eight weeks ago.
The difference is obvious, size wise its only a little larger than the D40.
ISO is usable all the way up to 1250 and the dynamic range shines through.
These are the only reasons I upgraded. The d40 is a cracker and I sold mine on Ebay body then kit lens for £220 plus postage and bought the D90 body only.
I was going to go for the D300 but for the miner upgrades of FPS and 51 poin AF it was a no brainer. I personally cant see the point of weather seals when the lens attachment isn't sealed.
The camera is so much more tunable to your shooting style. I have tweaked the setting on mine and now find a hardly do any post processing.
 
yoshi said:
where was that from?
trying to find the cheapest price but cant find anything like that..also assuming that is just the body
Click to expand...

That would have been pre-price rises, body only...you won't get a new one for a similar price now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top