PDA

View Full Version : D40 over XT?



jjackman
06-26-2007, 12:17 PM
I'm looking to buy my first DSLR and my budget is tight, so I decided to choose one of these cameras. So far, I am pretty decided on the XT because of its internal AF motor, and its 7 AF points over the d40s 3 AF points.

Is there anyone who can tell me why I should consider the d40 over the XT??

tcadwall
06-26-2007, 12:38 PM
jjackman,

What are the price differences? What are your goals? What do you take pictures of? Are you talking about XT or XTi? etc. Have you actually put these cameras in your hands? That cannot be downplayed. How do they feel to you?

Please be more specific.

Both cameras take great pictures. Both cameras are better than a point and shoot. Most of us are not crazy about the D40 because of the missing AF motor, but heck, I just let a friend buy one! :D Figured it gave him a better future I guess. He either won't need that motor (very likely) or a few years from now, he might decide he does... by then his business (which is doubling every 6months) will open up his budget for the D200 replacement if he needs something better. At which point, any glass that he does buy (like the 55-200mm VR or 70-300mm VR, etc) will work on a newer body anyway.

HOWEVER, most people that are really scouting it out to make sure they get the best (he wasn't) might feel limited by the absence of the af motor.

erichlund
06-26-2007, 12:45 PM
The XT doesn't have an internal AF motor. It doesn't need one. When Canon introduced the EOS system of lenses, they put the motors in the lenses from day one.

Nikon is perhaps feeling the pain of transition to lens based motors. So, in that regard, the XT is a more complete solution, at least if AF is important to you. The D40/D40x will only autofocus with AF-S lenses, or a third party lens that is AF-S compatible. The D40 can still use the Nikkor AF lenses, but you must focus them manually.

Both are good cameras. There are a wide variety of lenses that work very well on the D40s, so you may not find this to be a problem.

My recommendation would be to buy a small memory card for each type, go to your local retailer, and give both cameras a go. Ask them to help you set both cameras for jpg (unless you have the tools for handling RAW photos, in which case, why are we having this discussion?). Shoot a range of things, including some wide dynamic range shots and a dark corner of the store. Shoot at different ISOs. Etc. Which camera is easier to work with? Which feels better? Which produces better photos (try to take some identical shots)? That should make up your mind which to buy.

ae86gtv16
06-26-2007, 12:45 PM
jjackman,


Both cameras take great pictures. Both cameras are better than a point and shoot. Most of us are not crazy about the D40 because of the missing AF motor, but heck, I just let a friend buy one! :D Figured it gave him a better future I guess. .

I agree with tcadwall. my friend just bought a D40 because he was frustrated with his point and shoot digicam. He kept telling me that the photos of his children when at play are all blurred so he asked me if the D40 would be a good cam to take pictures of active kids. I told him to go for a
D50 first and if not available then D40 should be more than enough for his purpose. He finally bought a D40 and been asking about how to use the camera. after teaching him the basics, he's one happy guy with his new D40.:D

jjackman
06-26-2007, 01:10 PM
Thanks everyone for replying and for the info, I didn't know the XT didn't have an internal AF motor.

And I don't think the d40 would suit my needs when taking pictures of children...if a child is running across a room...or even moving slightly, your gonna have a better chance of capturing a better photo with auto focus. You will also have a better chance of capturing a better photo with the XT because of the 7 AF points over the d40s 3 AF points. For me right now, if I were to buy a d40, I wouldn't be able to buy a new AF lens any time soon...so I think the XT would be a better buy for me there. I have tried the XT, but not the d40. I found the XT small, but not small enough to sway my decision. Also, I have a Canon S3 now, so the menus will be more easy for me with the Canon. I will try the d40 when I get a chance.

I am into action (sports [mainly indoors], animals, etc.) and portrait photography, if that helps anyone in their reply. I also want the camera to be good in low light situations, with little noise at high ISO settings.

Thanks again.

tcadwall
06-26-2007, 01:29 PM
Funny, when it comes to point and shoot cameras, I would have a Canon before I would have a Nikon! But I like the Fuji P&S cameras more than the Canons.

You do realize that the kit lens WOULD autofocus. This is why we are asking what types of shots you do. That would help us know if you are going to have the need for lenses that wouldn't autofocus.

When it comes to AF points, for indoor sports, or snapshots like you are talking about, most of the time you are going to use the center AF point. I don't find that as big of a deal for this type of shooting. Depending on the AF mode you are in, the camera will 'follow' your subject (within reason) and still focus very well. At the entry level, the center AF point is the most accurate by far anyway. I think you would miss the additional AF points when you are doing portrait-type shots where you are framing with a subject off center... Again this can easily be accomodated with proper AF mode, and shooting style. For complicated scenic shots, and some sports, I think it is much more convenient to have more AF points though - so it isn't totally a discredited argument. I manually focus for portraits most of the time. Sometimes I even De-focus a bit for closeups for a softer skin effect.

Both cameras are going to be way better with noise / blur than what you are used to with a point n shoot.

Your biggest challenge with a D40 is going to be the indoor sports. That will be a big challenge period. My favorite lens for indoor kids sports (pro sports have good lighting and it is different) is the 50mm f/1.8 or similar prime. The primes at the normal, and moderate tele will not focus on a D40. More expensive constant f/2.8 zooms will. But you might as well get a better camera if you are going to spend that kind of cash.

For me, i did NOT like the way the XT felt in my hands. Back then I would have gone for either the D50 or the D70s (D40 wasn't out, and wouldn't have been a consideration for me if it was out). The D70s felt better to me, and I liked the additional controls on it. That is why I chose it over the D50, and the XT... I didn't like the XT handling at all.

Ray Schnoor
06-26-2007, 02:41 PM
And I don't think the d40 would suit my needs when taking pictures of children...if a child is running across a room...or even moving slightly, your gonna have a better chance of capturing a better photo with auto focus.
No one is saying that you won't be able to AF with the D40. There just isn't as wide an array of AF-S(compatible) lenses, but there are enough to keep "most" people happy. AF-S(compatible) lenses are the only lenses that will AF on the D40.

A list of Nikon lenses that will AF on the D40:
12-24mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor (http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2144)
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor (http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2170)
18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor (http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2149)
18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor (http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2162)
18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor (http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2159)
17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor (http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2147)
55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor (http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2156)
55-200mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor (http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2166)
70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR (http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2161)

There are also a few others which I have not listed.

Ray.

coldrain
06-26-2007, 04:09 PM
The OP stated portrait and macro photography among other things as requirements in other threads (note to OP: it is not really tolerated to post the same question in more than one forum).

Macro lenses that one also can use as portrait lens, which will AF on a D40: none.

Macro lenses that one can also use as portrait lens, which will AF on a D40:
Sigma 50mm f2.8
Canon 60mm f2.8
Sigma 70mm f2.8

OP obviously has no unlimitted budget for lenses.
Cheapest macro lens that will AF on D40(X):
Sigma 150mm f2.8, costs $700 I think?

Cheapest macro lens that will AF on XT/XTi:
Sigma 50mm f2.8, about $250 I think?
The other options mentioned above, around $400?

Standard and portrait zoom lenses, offering more than kit-lenses.
Same story.
Standard zoom for XT/XTi that will AF:
Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro, ~$430
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Di II, ~$450
Tokina 16-50 f2.8 DX, ~$600
Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM, ~$1000

Standard zoom for D40(X) that will AF:
Nikon AF-S 17-55 f2.8 DX, ~$1200

portrait zoom lenses for XT/XTi...
Sigma 24-70 f2.8, ~$350?
Tamron 18-75 f2.8, ~$400?
Canon 24-70 f2.8 L USM, ~$1000?

Portrait zoom lenses for D40(X) that will AF:
Nikon AF-S 28-70 f2.8, $1500?

Portrait primes... even worse.
Canon XT/XTi:
50mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8, 85mm f1.2

Portrait primes for D40(X):
none.

For now, there just are huge holes in the D40(X) lens lineup.
It is fine if someone wants to sacrifice all these features and lens options because they do not like the grip as much. I find that a bit odd, to say the least, though.

XaiLo
06-26-2007, 04:54 PM
The OP stated portrait and macro photography among other things as requirements in other threads (note to OP: it is not really tolerated to post the same question in more than one forum).

Macro lenses that one also can use as portrait lens, which will AF on a D40: none.

Macro lenses that one can also use as portrait lens, which will AF on a D40:
Sigma 50mm f2.8
Canon 60mm f2.8
Sigma 70mm f2.8

OP obviously has no unlimitted budget for lenses.
Cheapest macro lens that will AF on D40(X):
Sigma 150mm f2.8, costs $700 I think?

Cheapest macro lens that will AF on XT/XTi:
Sigma 50mm f2.8, about $250 I think?
The other options mentioned above, around $400?

Standard and portrait zoom lenses, offering more than kit-lenses.
Same story.
Standard zoom for XT/XTi that will AF:
Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro, ~$430
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Di II, ~$450
Tokina 16-50 f2.8 DX, ~$600
Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM, ~$1000

Standard zoom for D40(X) that will AF:
Nikon AF-S 17-55 f2.8 DX, ~$1200

portrait zoom lenses for XT/XTi...
Sigma 24-70 f2.8, ~$350?
Tamron 18-75 f2.8, ~$400?
Canon 24-70 f2.8 L USM, ~$1000?

Portrait zoom lenses for D40(X) that will AF:
Nikon AF-S 28-70 f2.8, $1500?

Portrait primes... even worse.
Canon XT/XTi:
50mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8, 85mm f1.2

Portrait primes for D40(X):
none.

For now, there just are huge holes in the D40(X) lens lineup.
It is fine if someone wants to sacrifice all these features and lens options because they do not like the grip as much. I find that a bit odd, to say the least, though.

Damn don't you ever get tired of your own soapbox disdain for the D40 you already chimed in on the Canon post. I'm almost willing to bet you have a T-Shirt that reads "DON'T BUY THE NIKON D40, THERE ARE NO AFFORDABLE LENSES THAT I LOVE THAT CAN AUTO FOCUS" give it a rest already. You come accross as a disgruntled 12 year old that can't concieve that all the world does not get their point of view. I apologize in advance if I said anything to offend you. sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry.

Ray Schnoor
06-26-2007, 05:41 PM
I'm looking to buy my first DSLR and my budget is tight, so I decided to choose one of these cameras. So far, I am pretty decided on the XT because of its internal AF motor, and its 7 AF points over the d40s 3 AF points.

Is there anyone who can tell me why I should consider the d40 over the XT??
I guess that my main question is how tight is your budget? Do you plan on buying the camera and a couple of lenses totaling $600-$1000, do you plan on buying the camera and 1 standard zoom lens for $400+, or do you plan on buying the camera with a kit lens? I guess when someone says that they are on a tight budget, I just assume that they are getting the kit lens. I may be mistaken, though.

Ray.

wh0128
06-26-2007, 05:49 PM
coldrain was just showing that if the guy were to get a D40 with a limited budget, any lens that he would want to buy would be expensive in relation to all the lenses Canon's XT can use and autofocus with because of the internal focusing motor within the lenses.

He has a good point. If I were to choose the XT over the D40 I'd get the XT because of the AF problem as well as the lenses that are usable with the XT body. More lenses for less money or more money for less lenses is the issue with the D40.

Ray Schnoor
06-26-2007, 06:00 PM
I guess that is my problem. When I see "limited budget", I just assume camera body with kit lens which will be used for action, portrait, macro, etc..., not camera body with f/2.8 standard zoom lens, f/2.8 macro lens and f/1.whatever prime portrait lens regardless of the cost. Don't forget about the reported focusing problems the XT has with 3rd party lenses. You should probably stick with the Canon lenses on CR's list.

Ray.

jjackman
06-26-2007, 07:02 PM
I guess that my main question is how tight is your budget? Do you plan on buying the camera and a couple of lenses totaling $600-$1000, do you plan on buying the camera and 1 standard zoom lens for $400+, or do you plan on buying the camera with a kit lens? I guess when someone says that they are on a tight budget, I just assume that they are getting the kit lens. I may be mistaken, though.

Ray.

My budget is TIGHT. I'm a 17 year old workin' at $7.41/hr just to afford a DSLR...so the camera I buy, I'll be using just the kit lens for a long time.

And coldrain, the reason I posted this same question in other fourms was because when I first posted on this site, I wasn't sure about anything and posted it in the Canon fourm...which after I realised was abit biased, so I posted this in the "Which camera should I buy?" fourm and then I thought about it and decided to post it in the Nikon SLR fourm to try and bias it abit in an attepmt to here some good things from the d40 because I still can't see why anyone (on a tight budget) would get the d40 over the XT. Thanks for posting the info on the lenses btw :).

Thanks to everyone for replying.

Alex D80
06-26-2007, 07:31 PM
For me, i did NOT like the way the XT felt in my hands. Back then I would have gone for either the D50 or the D70s (D40 wasn't out, and wouldn't have been a consideration for me if it was out). The D70s felt better to me, and I liked the additional controls on it. That is why I chose it over the D50, and the XT... I didn't like the XT handling at all.

That is exactly the reason why I didn't buy an XTi that I was so sure about. After I held it in my hands, so plasticy, so small, that I ended up buying the Nikon D80. A lot more camera that I need, but I am extremely happy. I haven't played with the D40 or D40x, but that was the main reason I stepped away from the XTi. Of course, I could have chosen the 30D, but after reading here for over 2 months, I decided on the Nikon D80 18-135 kit lens.

They are both great start up cameras. Just think about the future. We all know that in the digital world it changes very rappidly, so make sure you buy a camera that the lenses will be compatible with the camera that you wanted that you couldn't afford just in case in the near future you can afford it, and heck, you already have the glass for it. So it might be easier to purchase that future body.

Good luck.

r3g
06-26-2007, 07:57 PM
Go to a store and play with both of them, figure out which ones feel "better" to you. Thats what i did when i chose my D40 over the XTi. I have no regrets.

Listening to peoples opinions is fine and all but in the end your choice comes down to you.

XaiLo
06-26-2007, 08:23 PM
coldrain was just showing that if the guy were to get a D40 with a limited budget, any lens that he would want to buy would be expensive in relation to all the lenses Canon's XT can use and autofocus with because of the internal focusing motor within the lenses.

He has a good point. If I were to choose the XT over the D40 I'd get the XT because of the AF problem as well as the lenses that are usable with the XT body. More lenses for less money or more money for less lenses is the issue with the D40.


What good is it to be able to purchase affordable 3rd party or Canon lenses that the camera can't focus??? All I'm saying is don't operate under the guise that there are "perfect" alternatives.

Edit: The 18-55mm kit lens that comes with the D40 is a rather nice lens and the 55-200mm VR is proving that it can hold it's own and then some at a very attractive price point. And ISO 1600 is useable in this camera. Secondly I'm not of the opinion that Nikon is totally daft so I doubt that they are finished releasing new lenses for this box that enough people believe they have painted themselves into.

Also with the popularity of the D40 do you think third party vendors are going to ignore that part of the market segment forever.

LR Max
06-26-2007, 08:56 PM
My biggest issue with Canon is that their kit lenses are pretty crappy. These days where the bodies are disposable and the lenses make or break you, a nikon kit 18-55 will blow the canon kit lense outta the water. I sat and watched my friend fix up her images in photoshop that came out of her XT with the kit lense. In comparison, my D70s with the nikon kit 18-55 only needed a little barrel distortion fixing.

All the canon peeps in my neck of the woods talk about how they want L lenses because they are ssssooooo much better than all the other canon lenses. In comparison, lately, Nikon has been producing good, reasonably priced lenses.

The autofocus point debate: I think this is moot because I just use AF lock. Easier than messing with two separate sets of buttons or whatever.

You really need to test out both types of cameras. I've handled/played with the Canon XT/XTi cameras. They don't feel comfortable in my hand. On the other side, the D40 wasn't all that spectacular either.

Lastly, the giant debate over the on board autofocus motor. I use a AF-S lense 98% of the time. All of my photos taken for the magazine I work for were taken with this AF-S lense (18-200VR). I have two AF-D lenses, a 50mm f/1.8 and a 60mm macro. In general, both of these lenses sit on my desk or in my camera bag most of the time. The AF-S lense stays bolted to my camera a lot. With this in mind, I think its safe to say that you won't be missing the AF-D lenses too much. I know a lot of ya'll will get pissy at that statement. I know there are a lot of excellent D lenses out there but they are beginning to fall by the wayside, at least for me they are. I've sold off three of my D lenses lately. I just don't use them anymore.

erichlund
06-26-2007, 09:42 PM
Snip...

All the canon peeps in my neck of the woods talk about how they want L lenses because they are ssssooooo much better than all the other canon lenses. In comparison, lately, Nikon has been producing good, reasonably priced lenses.

The corollary to this is that the other day I was reading a discussion amongst Nikon pros lamenting the fact that Nikon seems to have forgotten them.

snip...

Lastly, the giant debate over the on board autofocus motor. I use a AF-S lense 98% of the time. All of my photos taken for the magazine I work for were taken with this AF-S lense (18-200VR). I have two AF-D lenses, a 50mm f/1.8 and a 60mm macro. In general, both of these lenses sit on my desk or in my camera bag most of the time. The AF-S lense stays bolted to my camera a lot. With this in mind, I think its safe to say that you won't be missing the AF-D lenses too much. I know a lot of ya'll will get pissy at that statement. I know there are a lot of excellent D lenses out there but they are beginning to fall by the wayside, at least for me they are. I've sold off three of my D lenses lately. I just don't use them anymore.

Perhaps that comes from buying a lens because someone else told you that you needed it rather than getting it because it filled a specific need in your bag. I suspect the 50mm sits in that position in a lot of bags. I'm not just pointing a finger at you. I have one too. :o OTOH, a lot of people get a lot of good use out of them.

I get a lot more use out of my 55mm AI-S micro. It reminds me of the lenses I had with my old film camera. The manual focus is real slick on a lens designed to be focused by hand. With the decent viewfinder on my D200, I can nail focus even without the idiot light. In fact, I'll often offset the focus point so that it won't distract me from getting the focus I want.

LR Max
06-27-2007, 03:14 AM
Touche, good sir.

On the other hand, I think nikon has an excellent stable of "professional" lenses. The 17-55, 28-70, 70-200, and the 50mm f/1.2 are all lenses I see constantly on cameras used by the higher end professionals.

I mean, they are pretty much covered which is convienent because they buy 2~3 lenses and they are good to go.

Consumers like most everyone here want four things: lightweight, inexpensive, VR, and reasonably good performance. They've been giving us these four things lately.

I don't think nikon has been ignoring the pro lenses either. They have been coming out with replacement models with VR in the top end glasses (if my memory serves me correct).

Rooz
06-27-2007, 03:31 AM
i think the 17-55mm f2.8 not having VR is a massive hole in the lineup. especially given the outrageous price of the lens.

coldrain
06-27-2007, 04:23 AM
The reason Nikon pro's are grumbing about Nikon neglecting them a bit the last few years is not all that odd, LR Max.
The only "pro" lens of late that I remeber is the new 105mm f2.8 VR macro.

If you look at the Canon "pro" zoom lineup, and "pro" prime lineup, you know where the grumbling comes from. 85mm f1.2 mk II, 50mm f1.2, 135mm f2, 35mm f1.4, 70-200 f4 IS, pro lenses that are new, and/or have no Nikon equivalent at the moment.
And all pro primes from Canon have USM, almost no pro primes from Nikon have AF-S yet.

So... I understand the grumbling. But my guess is that Nikon will be updating their pro lens line-up this year, especially the prime range. To accompany their new D3 (full frame?).
Should be an interesting fall?

Rooz
06-27-2007, 05:01 AM
Should be an interesting fall?

interesting ? i dunno maybe a talking point but its not like alot of people in this forum are going to be jumping on new pro lens' or a D3. so while it may be an interesting talking point it isn;t really going to affect us too much imo. an 85mm f1.4 is already way out of my reach so adding an f1.2 and afs is not going to get me any closer to the goal unelss is means the 85mm f1.4 is significantly price reduced.

besides which, i for one like the crop factor of dslr and have no intention of going FF in the near, (or far) future. i like the added "artificial" range so really for me, the whole FF argument means absolutely nothing and i couldn't care less about it.

i can understand that to pros this is critical stuff, but not for me or most of the rest of us i would imagine.

erichlund
06-27-2007, 09:10 AM
i think the 17-55mm f2.8 not having VR is a massive hole in the lineup. especially given the outrageous price of the lens.

I have this lens. I've not run into some of the "issues" coldrain is constantly harping about with this lens, but then I don't really go looking for them either. One thing I can say is that not having VR on this short a focal length has never been a problem for me.

OK, I realize there are people who don't have the steadiest of hands. For them VR is very handy. So's a monopod or tripod.

Given that this is a PRO lens, I would expect that VR will be a long time coming. Any pro that can't find a way to shoot under 100mm (equiv) in any light should probably be thinking about career alternatives.

jcon
06-27-2007, 02:34 PM
Coldrains last post was so true he had to post it twice!:D

I do agree with him though, I am anxiously waiting to see what Nikon is going to do. Hell, I may upgrade to a D3 right away, if it's worth it.

I also agree with erichlund, I havent noticed too many downsides of my 17-55mm lens. I also havent found the NEED for VR, although it would be nice, it's not life or death for me. 80% of the time I am using a tripod anyway.

coldrain
06-28-2007, 03:28 AM
Hmm, other than the price I can't really remember harping about downsides, of the 17-55 f2.8.
Pointing out that it loses a bit towards 55mm in sharpness and contrast is not exactly pointing out downsides, is it? Just making comparisons, and pointing that out is not saying that it is a lens that is not good, or with big issues...

It is all about the context in which things are being said.

Rooz
06-28-2007, 03:45 AM
i can point to the main downside from my POV. as i said before...no VR for the price you are paying.

pros not needing IS/ VR ? well that may or may not be the case...i can't see why not if it were available why wouldn;t you want it ?? are we saying that its useless for a pro ? monopod and tripods ? bugger that the idea of VR is to minimise the necessity to have to use them so no thanks.

my point is that this is the only "new" 2.8 lens nikon offer right now of high quality, (that coveres the wide angle needed cos of crop), is super expensive and has no VR, to me thats a colossol hole. i would always prefer to buy nikkor glass if i could for resale value alone and i wasn;t given that option the way canon has their 2.8 IS.

i'm not criticising the lens itself or its performance, i have used it alot and i LOVE the sharpness and clarity but i won;t be paying that price for what it is. my opinion obviously means squat though cos it sells like all buggery.

erichlund
06-29-2007, 11:26 AM
Hmm, other than the price I can't really remember harping about downsides, of the 17-55 f2.8.
Pointing out that it loses a bit towards 55mm in sharpness and contrast is not exactly pointing out downsides, is it? Just making comparisons, and pointing that out is not saying that it is a lens that is not good, or with big issues...

It is all about the context in which things are being said.

OK, I did my research, and I retract the "harping" word. Still, it's almost always, "It's a good lens...but...". Damned by faint praise so to speak.

We also shouldn't forget that it still has decent sharpness and contrast, and there are other qualities that make a lens stand out from the pack. For instance, most lenses have straight ends on the diaphram blades, so point highlights tend to blur to geometric objects when stopped down to f5.6/f8. The rounded blades of the Nikkor give a smoother blur.

There are other good features of this lens, good color saturation, sharp wide open (which is rare), and minimal light falloff wide open. If it has a real weakness, it's highly susceptible to flare and ghosting in strongly backlit scenes (Think sunsets).

Until very recently, it really had no competition for this range of lens. There are a couple of new entries in the field (Canon (doesn't work on a Nikon) and Sigma). The Sigma is an interesting entry, but one needs to look at all the features before deciding on a lens. For instance, does the Sigma have squared blades? It has the same 7 as the Nikkor, but they say nothing about the geometry on their website. While it retains better resolution at the long end, you have to look at the scales that coldrain posted to realize that the lines of resolution scale is much taller on the Nikkor's chart. This means, where the Nikkor is best, it's much better. Of course, you can't even see it on the 6mp cameras (camera limited), but on the D2x it's very good, and I suspect I get some of that benefit on my D200.

So, if you are in the market for a 15-5x APS-C lens for Nikon, you must decide whether the advantages of the Nikkor outweigh the extra cost over the Sigma. For me, I still think it does, but I don't know enough about the Sigma to say for sure. It wasn't available when I got the Nikkor, so it's a moot point. On the other hand, if you are looking now, it's good to have choices. :D

swgod98
06-29-2007, 12:04 PM
there are other qualities that make a lens stand out from the pack.

This is a very good point that is often overlooked in the flood of IQ charts out there. Often times, I've found that 3rd party lenses do not have a manual focus override option. That's something I've learned to like using on occasion. You also need to be careful about the front lens element turning on many lenses...this prevents the use of certain filters/polarizers.

fionndruinne
06-30-2007, 12:47 PM
Coldrain has to come into a topic posted by someone with a tight budget... and start talking about pro lens lineups. It's just weird.

I had the same very tight budget, and chose the D40 (based on feel mainly at the time, I much preferred it to the XTi), I think I made a good choice. Seeing as you might not have the cash for more lenses right away, you'll appreciate the very decent quality of the 18-55mm kit lens, coupled when needbe with great performance at ISO 1600. Then, the 55-200mm VR is very good quality, and inexpensive. You'll head into pricier waters after that, like $400 for the Sigma 30mm HSM prime, but those two Nikkors will last you quite a while, I'd think.

jcon
06-30-2007, 01:17 PM
I think its a bit unfortunate that some jump all over someone else simply for stating an opinion, and in most cases the TRUTH.

I havent always agreed with Coldrain but all the guy was/is doing in this thread is pointing out facts about price differences with the 2 options listed by the OP. If someone takes offense to him stating his opinion, then maybe it is they that are acting like the 12 year old.

Ive given my opinion on the D40 many times so I will restrict my post from doing so this time.

Maybe in the future, if you(everyone, myself included) don't agree with someones opinion try stating what you dont agree with in a respectful, non-childish manner.

Donato777
08-09-2007, 10:36 AM
With profuse apologies to Coldrain - yes, I took your opinions about the D40 seriously and read every post I could find - I opted for the D40 over the XTi. I had both cameras and the D40 just felt right in my hands and more intuitive also. The XTi's grip is too small IMHO and it felt uncomfortable holding it. Add to this the fact that I do not need 10mps.,a dust removal system or 9 focal points, etc. the better quality D40 kit lens, and the $200.00 price difference between the two models and...I went with the D40. I love the camera. I took my first shots and the results are amazing. For the first time, the sapphire blue eyes on my Birman cat actually came through with no funny red eye. The colors and sharpness suit me fine and it is pretty user friendly too. Next purchase: Nikon 18-200VR and 70-300VR and that will keep me happy for a long time.

r3g
08-09-2007, 11:07 AM
Congrats and welcome to Club D40 :] . Cant wait to see pictures! Have you thought about saving some money and instead of getting the 18-200VR ($730ish) keeping your 18-55 and getting the 55-200VR ($240ish)? Youll still have VR and those hundreds dollars youll save can go toward the 70-300VR ($450ish). Of course its totally understandable if you want to be able to walk around with one lens.

XaiLo
08-09-2007, 12:59 PM
I think its a bit unfortunate that some jump all over someone else simply for stating an opinion, and in most cases the TRUTH.

I havent always agreed with Coldrain but all the guy was/is doing in this thread is pointing out facts about price differences with the 2 options listed by the OP. If someone takes offense to him stating his opinion, then maybe it is they that are acting like the 12 year old.

Ive given my opinion on the D40 many times so I will restrict my post from doing so this time.

Maybe in the future, if you(everyone, myself included) don't agree with someones opinion try stating what you dont agree with in a respectful, non-childish manner.

Funny for a lurker you still mange to find time to throw an insults around:confused:

Maybe Coldy has a problems defending his position that he now needs help hmmmmm somehow I just can't buy into that. Your pretty good yourself at trying to impose your will over others then scurrying away under the pretense of oh what did I say.

Contrary to what your expousing I have no problems with the facts, what I have a problem with is "BIAS" would you like me to quote the definition to you. The XT/XTI are not with out thier own issues... Canon lenses are not without issue. Coldrain had already posted his opinion in the Canon section yet he felt the need to reinforce it by coming here, and leaving off with a dismissal of a point that was important to someone else. While ergonomics may not be important to him there are some tactile personalities out there that would disagree.

Let's see what Coldy had to say earlier in the day while he glady sumarized his percieved negatives of the D40 hmmm... see anything missing in his two posts. I'd be under the impression that the XT/XTI were without issues. But that must be the thruth because as you say all he's doing is providing facts.


Like mentioned above, the lenses are a very important part of the deal.
Since you are looking at the cheapest DSLRs, I guess your budget it very limitted though...

Low shutter lag, good photo quality, low noise, fast AF, both cameras are good.

But the D40 has a few downsides to it. It has no exposure bracketing, no mirror lock up, no depth of field button, only 3 AF points, misses ISO and whitebalance buttons, meaning you have to dig through the menu to get at them, it just is one severly stripped down DSLR. And on top of that, it has a missing internal motor, making good affordable 3rd party lenses out of your reach, making it the more expensive choice in future.
It misses a decent RAW convertor too.

Of course the XT offers a bit higher resolution too, but this should be the least of your "worries".

The lens choice is important and will need some budget, though.
Action? That is too vague to comment on.

Macro? You will want a dedicated macro lens. You can combine that with a good portrait lens, as long as you get a macro lens with a focal length that is especially suited for portrait photography.
The Nikon 60mm f2.8 micro, the Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8 macro, and the Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro are the best candidates.
On the D40, neither the Nikon nor the Sigma will autofucus!
On the XT, the Sigma and the Canon will be very good macro lenses, and very nice portrait lenses.

Night? What do you mean with night... What do you photograph in the night? People/portraits? City scapes? The moon? "Action"?
You do not need a special camera or lens for "night", but what you will need will depend a LOT on what you want to photograph in low light.

Unlike some I get that the D40 is not going to be for everyone. I can appreciate though that there is a market segment that this camera is going to appeal to.

And if you are still confused about this... read this post from Donatto777 http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=242920&postcount=31

I also get that you seem to have a real personal problem with me... and seem to feel that you're my personal overseer but you are insignificant in the space of my life. All I can say is I hope you grow up and for the record I did not call Coldrain a 12 year old! Why don't you reread what I stated and the context in which it was written.

fionndruinne
08-09-2007, 01:42 PM
Congratulations, Donato! I'm sure you'll continue to love your new D40, and don't forget to post some photos, eh?

jcon
08-09-2007, 02:31 PM
Funny for a lurker you still mange to find time to throw an insults around:confused:


You being confused doesnt surprise me at all. But as I have said to a few others in some very popular threads here, which I am sure you conveniently "missed" I said the Lurking message is a joke, although I am pretty sure you cant comprehend that.




Maybe Coldy has a problems defending his position that he now needs help hmmmmm somehow I just can't buy into that. Your pretty good yourself at trying to impose your will over others then scurrying away under the pretense of oh what did I say.


I also get that you seem to have a real personal problem with me... and seem to feel that you're my personal overseer but you are insignificant in the space of my life. All I can say is I hope you grow up and for the record I did not call Coldrain a 12 year old! Why don't you reread what I stated and the context in which it was written.

I am not defending Coldrain, but as usual with your posts, you interpret things others say the way you want, so you can begin your personal "debates" with people.

I do not have a personal problem with you or anyone else here, in fact, I have enjoyed looking at some of your pictures in the POTD thread.

And to clarify for your own personal records, here is where you referred to CR as a 12 year old. Going back and rereading this entire thread, there is only one post that looks like it came from a 12 year old... and here it is..... Enjoy...





Damn don't you ever get tired of your own soapbox disdain for the D40 you already chimed in on the Canon post. I'm almost willing to bet you have a T-Shirt that reads "DON'T BUY THE NIKON D40, THERE ARE NO AFFORDABLE LENSES THAT I LOVE THAT CAN AUTO FOCUS" give it a rest already. You come accross as a disgruntled 12 year old that can't concieve that all the world does not get their point of view. I apologize in advance if I said anything to offend you. sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry.

r3g
08-09-2007, 02:52 PM
Is there no end to the madness!!??

XaiLo
08-09-2007, 04:22 PM
As I stated that's how he was coming across I did not call him a twelve year old. But more importantly I was not and did not address you. You made it your business to get involved and in the same breath state your not defending Coldrain. Well what are you doing you've just directly attacked me twice without me having had anything to do with you.

I get it Coldrain basically is saying what you feel so in your world that gives you the right to call me out. What you seemed to have missed is the first line understand that! and you'll understand the facetious and sarcastic nature of the rest of my post. Which was readily followed by an apology.

Your right I'm confused as to how any of this involved you at all :confused::confused::confused:

Unlike some I happen to own a D40! Does it have every feature set that every amatuer or professional photographer could want? Nope! But show me the Pro, Prosumer, Amatuer camera that does? If Ansel Adams was shooting with a D40 would that change the quality of an Ansel Adams photo? There are some people out there who don't want to buy a truck load of lenses. Who could care less about a prime. Who will not want to shoot macro pics. Who will never purchase a lens beyond the kit lens. Who only want a camera to take the picture they want when they want it. Something their P&S won't do. Don't believe me just look at the sales figures.

A D40 with kit lens can be had for $525 add the 55-200mm VR @ $249 to it. and you have a very nice vesatile kit. Not everyone is in it to push the limits of photography

Now one could sit back and pretend that Coldrain is not on a personal crusade against the D40. And touting the XT/XTI as the second coming. I just don't happen to be that one.

Nor am I enamoured with the D40 to the point I'm blinded. One of my daughters teachers ask me just yesterday my opinion between the D40x and the D80. Without reservation I told him to go with the D80 because we already had a couple of conversations and I know where he wants to go with his photography.

Please do us both a favor don't reply to any of my posts and I won't reply to any of yours and all can be well in the universe.:)

r3g
08-09-2007, 04:49 PM
Please do us both a favor don't reply to any of my posts and I won't reply to any of yours and all can be well in the universe.:)


Not exactly. Though I completely respect peoples opinions some statements are just bold face lies. And anyone who has actually used the D40 would know that. For example its been said that because there is no dedicated ISO and WB button you have "dig through the menu" to change them... So not true! There is a Fn button that can be set AND even without it both ISO and WB along with pretty much any other often changed setting are right there on the main LCD. Takes less then 3 seconds to change ANY of those settings. There are other very untrue statements that are constantly made about the camera but they arent even worth mentioning because facts speak louder then opinions. And that facts are it as an awesome camera for the price and the market seg. its aimed at. If it were as bad as people try and make it out to be it wouldnt be outselling more expensive and "complete" cameras like crazy. This is why I always say when your picking a camera go play with your choices. People can bad mouth a model all they want but when your standing there with the camera in your hand the facts are quickly made clear.

fionndruinne
08-09-2007, 05:49 PM
I am not defending Coldrain, but as usual with your posts, you interpret things others say the way you want, so you can begin your personal "debates" with people.

First off, yes you are trying to defend CR. Why you'd do that is beyond me - no one has any cause to question CR as a photographer, but in his adamant refusal to accept the idea of the D40 he's just out there. And going along with that is going to make you look just as absurd.

Second of all, XaiLo is one of the last people to ever argue for the sake of arguing, from what I've seen. It's pretty rarely even in the D40 debates XaiLo will say much, and then only enough to get the point across. Don't make folks out to be agitators when they're not.

Blind_Man
08-10-2007, 06:56 PM
D40 is great.

The low light capability is a god send and so is the low weight.

The only thing I don't like about the D40 is how small it is!!!!

I shoot in Jpeg/fine on this cam and it is on par with my D200.

The lack of AF points is not a big consideration nor minus IMHO. It becomes second nature to recompose a shot using focus lock (half press of shutter release), I don't do much sports photography but I presume that the three horizontal AF points is more then enough.

I don't think Nikon was wrong to leave out the AF motor, for the intended market. ie P&S upgraders who for the majority might never buy another lens other then the 55-200mm Vr kit lens.

Especially the way DSLR lose value and a new replacement comes out every 6months? Dare I say a D55 with a AF motor? I wouldn't be surprised since I was very intrigued by the D50 -> D40 -> D40x in quick succession?

My wish list if d40 was my only body would be in order of importance (not available from any vendor at this time)

AFS/HSM variety of 24mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8, 100mm f1.8 at affordable prices (note I did not go for dream list of F2 or F1.4 for everything)


Gone are the days when the F4 was top model for 10 years+

I recommended D40 to many of my friends and they all loved it. Especially the fact it has minimal LAG compared to a P&S. Out of three friends that went out and got the D40 or XT not one have gone out and bought another lense.

Hi these are just my thoughts and my first post.

fionndruinne
08-10-2007, 07:09 PM
Welcome, sir. I agree with you completely; and as to prime lenses, well, we'll see what comes. Zoom lenses are so good these days that primes become somewhat less crucial, I think. And with new options from Sigma with HSM, as well as that nice Nikkor 55-200mm, the D40 becomes a better and better choice for a first DSLR.

Incidentally, I didn't know one could join a clique with so little expense, but "Club D40" sounds pretty cool. :p

XaiLo
08-10-2007, 07:30 PM
Hello and welcome to the community Blind_Man, I am glad to see someone who owns a D200 can appreciate the D40. Hope to see some pics from down under soon. You'll find a few of your fellow countrymen here also. :)

Rooz
08-10-2007, 07:33 PM
Hi these are just my thoughts and my first post.

what are your thoughts on the sb400 ?

Blind_Man
08-10-2007, 07:59 PM
what are your thoughts on the sb400 ?

Far better then the built-in speedlite but not worth the money and should save for the SB600.

I know people say if one is buying a SB600 one should save the pennies for SB800, but if the choice was SB400 or SB600 then SB800 would be an overkill.

To clarify, the only reason I say this is because the SB600 give you more bounce options.

The bounce is the only option I know EVERY external flash user will use and the SB400 is very restricted in this sense.

Of course there are multitude of functions like advance CLS, variety of wireless and manual options that SB600/800 have but if you were looking seriously getting into it "flash photogrpahy", then SB400 should be not an option.

Rooz
08-10-2007, 08:04 PM
Far better then the built-in speedlite but not worth the money and should save for the SB600.

I know people say if one is buying a SB600 one should save the pennies for SB800, but if the choice was SB400 or SB600 then SB800 would be an overkill.

To clarify, the only reason I say this is because the SB600 give you more bounce options.

The bounce is the only option I know EVERY external flash user will use and the SB400 is very restricted in this sense.

Of course there are multitude of functions like advance CLS, variety of wireless and manual options that SB600/800 have but if you were looking seriously getting into it "flash photogrpahy", then SB400 should be not an option.

yeah i have both the 800 and 600. i have long been considering the 400 though for just around the house. when do you use it ?

Blind_Man
08-10-2007, 08:15 PM
yeah i have both the 800 and 600. i have long been considering the 400 though for just around the house. when do you use it ?

When I know SB800 on a D200 plus 28-70mm will mean being asked to be not used at night clubs or actually getting kicked out. Clubs where I don't know the management can get anal about it. :mad:

Where as a 18-200mm on D40 plus SB400 gets curious looks but no real hassles.

Oh and when friends want to borrow gear :)

bobc4d
08-10-2007, 08:41 PM
I don't know what all the bickering is all about, but I recently purchased the D40 and really like it. It works for me. could it be better ? yes could it be worse, hell yes. I moved to the D40 from an Oly D400Z P&S so it is miles ahead of what I had. I'll mostly use the D40 to take pictures of the kid at soccer, nature and airshows. As I move from picture taker to amature photographer I'm sure I'll out grow the D40 but by that time something much nicer will be on the market than what is currently out now.

Gintaras
08-11-2007, 02:57 AM
The reason I went to this forum was I saw a few postings from Nikonians on Canon forum.

I have XTi and read here a lot about XTi vs. D40. And what I read reminds me about similar situation but the other way around on Canon forum which probably is logical considering which camera you own.

I am novice to DSLR world and I went through similar issues deciding on which camera, lens, etc...

Having said that I want to share a few thoughts I have with regard to XTi vs. Nikon.

1) It is not fair to compare XTi to D80 or D70, instead you have to compare it to D40.

2) Talk about plastic feel of XTi is a bit weird because D40 is also made of plastic. In fact both cameras are made of high quality plastic but finish is different which creates different feel.

3) It is true, D40 has a better grip, but I find no problem with XTi grip either. However if you want that solid feel in your hand you must consider D80 or 30D instead of XTi or D40.

4) It is true, sometimes third party lenses have AF problem on Canon, but it usually stems from a sample quality issue rather than from a camera issue. I have heard Tamron has the edge over Sigma AF on Canon.

5) I have not tested kit lenses of D40 but reviewers indeed tell about better quality on D40. Question however is how long you want to live with kit lenses? Also same reviewers say kit lenses on Pentax or Olympus are better. So then what?

6) I would prefer to have AF assist lamp of D40 on XTi, but then this is not a major issue.

7) As regards lenses this will matter a lot in future when you want to step up from kit and see what both cameras can do.

8) AF motor issue, it can pain you with D40 if you plan to step up or have Nikon non AF-S lenses already.

9) High quality Nikon lenses sometimes tend to be more expensive than similar quality Canons.

10) Some say XTi straight out of box takes softer images. The way to solve is to boost sharpness in camera. Each camera has its own factory setting, so let this not destruct you.

11) There are no dull colors on both cameras, but if you like saturated pix you can boost saturation in camera.

12) I would prefer to have control over NR like on D40, but in XTi you cannot switch off DigicII processor but then XTi processor is not very intrusive compared to other cameras.

13) I personally am more concerned about photo in camera processing, particularly knowing Nikon love for reds (and this you cannot turn off), so sometimes reds become too much red. I used Nikon Coolpix line up in former times and over saturated reds was often a big issue for me. I do not understand why Nikon cannot work out this issue, it lasts for decade.

14) You get no proper RAW software with Nikon, so if you got no Photoshop or similar, you must purchase this separately which adds to your price tag.

15) Personal taste matters a lot, so that is why some go Nikon and others go Canon.

NB: at the end what matters is your choice and your ability to take great pix with your camera, while it does not matter if your DSLR camera is Nikon or Canon or Olympus or else…

Rooz
08-11-2007, 04:20 AM
The reason I went to this forum was I saw a few postings from Nikonians on Canon forum.

we welcome everyone to this forum. :) yes, even coldy who has provided much valuable advice.

1) It is not fair to compare XTi to D80 or D70, instead you have to compare it to D40.

i disagree. the xti is a fully featured 10mp dslr. it is much more comparable as a dslr to a d80 rather than a d40. the only thing the d40 and the xti are comparable on is their size. canon are very smart cookies which is why they chopped the price of the xti to try and stem the tide of people going for the d40. very clever indeed !

2) Talk about plastic feel of XTi is a bit weird because D40 is also made of plastic. In fact both cameras are made of high quality plastic but finish is different which creates different feel.

yes, both are plastic. the d80 is also plastic. but the feel of the plastics used on the nikons are nicer in the hand which gives the illusion i suppose of better build quality. this is the same as comparing different leather car seats. despite the fact they are all leather, some feel better than others.

3) It is true, D40 has a better grip, but I find no problem with XTi grip either. However if you want that solid feel in your hand you must consider D80 or 30D instead of XTi or D40.

agreed.

4) It is true, sometimes third party lenses have AF problem on Canon, but it usually stems from a sample quality issue rather than from a camera issue. I have heard Tamron has the edge over Sigma AF on Canon.

i think this varies from lens to lens and camera to camera, regardless of body make. i don;t think this is an issue for ither make.

5) I have not tested kit lenses of D40 but reviewers indeed tell about better quality on D40. Question however is how long you want to live with kit lenses? Also same reviewers say kit lenses on Pentax or Olympus are better. So then what?

i don;t think any reviewer would say that the pentax kit lens is better than the nikons. besides, if you aren;t happy with the kit lens on a d40 then the option is now open the d40 users to pick up the Sigma18-50mm f2.8. the option is also there to pick up the nikkor 18-200VR.

7) As regards lenses this will matter a lot in future when you want to step up from kit and see what both cameras can do. AF motor issue, it can pain you with D40 if you plan to step up or have Nikon non AF-S lenses already.

i don't believe this is anywhere near as much of an issue as people make it out to be. agreed if you already have non af-s nikon lens you wont be able to use them however i would suspect if you have non afs kit lens then you aren;t new to dslr and so would not be considering the d40.

lens in future ? i have been thru this dozens of times, there is a plenty of lens's available for the d40 EXCEPT primes. telephoto there are almost as many nikkor options for the d40 as there are for the d80. this can range from cheap consumer grade like the 55-200VR or 70-300VR to the pro grade 70-200f2.8. there are also quite a few sigma HSM options.that covers the bases fine.

wide angle there is the 10-20mm sigma, walkaround there is the 18-200VR or the 18-50mm f2.8 sigma. macro there is the 150mm f2.8 or the nikkor 105VR. if you really want a low light prime there is also the sigma 30mm f1.4.

9) High quality Nikon lenses sometimes tend to be more expensive than similar quality Canons.

true, but again, this is the same regardless of whether you have a d40 or d80.

10) Some say XTi straight out of box takes softer images. The way to solve is to boost sharpness in camera. Each camera has its own factory setting, so let this not destruct you.

agreed.

12) I would prefer to have control over NR like on D40, but in XTi you cannot switch off DigicII processor but then XTi processor is not very intrusive compared to other cameras.

agreed.

13) I personally am more concerned about photo in camera processing, particularly knowing Nikon love for reds (and this you cannot turn off), so sometimes reds become too much red. I used Nikon Coolpix line up in former times and over saturated reds was often a big issue for me. I do not understand why Nikon cannot work out this issue, it lasts for decade.

it is true that nikon is slanted to red. but this can be toned down if required. personally i never turn this down but you can customise the colour cast by adding more blue if needed in-cam. you can also select a colour mode in am like colour mode Ia which drastically reduces red saturation. i don;t think there is anything to sort out here. i like the warmer nikon tones.

14) You get no proper RAW software with Nikon, so if you got no Photoshop or similar, you must purchase this separately which adds to your price tag.

true, but again, this is common across all nikon cams. remember that you get no lens hoods, (in many cases anyway), or lens cases or flash cases with canon gear. most people have photoshop or bibble or some other form of raw editor so imo, this is a non issue. at least you can buy a raw converter, you can;t buy an AF assist lamp.

15) Personal taste matters a lot, so that is why some go Nikon and others go Canon. at the end what matters is your choice and your ability to take great pix with your camera, while it does not matter if your DSLR camera is Nikon or Canon or Olympus or else

totally agree. the d40 arguments have toned down quite a bit lately although there are still some that don;t get it. when it first came out it was quite ridiculous how much heat the camera copped. one look in the d40 pic of the day thread will show critics that the camera is capable of taking outstanding pics.

Gintaras
08-11-2007, 06:43 AM
lens in future:
I meant original brand lenses, not third party lens. I find Canon line up a tad better in this area plus outstanding range of primes. Speaking of third party I am aware that most produce lenses for both Canons and Nikons.

As regards comparison, I still find for the class and purpose a comparison between XTi and D40 appropriate while I find D80 and 30D to be more of a prosumer DSLR. This is just a personal point of view. The fact that Nikon cut D40 on features just shows the policy of Nikon but does not mean you cannot compare this to XTi. I also think D40 shares market with XTi while D80 steals from 30D.

As for plastic feel, I agree, I just wanted to point that it is about feel, not about quality. I find XTi plastic very durable and solid. It does not feel cheap in anyway to me unlike some people claim. Of course it would be nicer to have XTi built in SD700 or SD800 quality with aluminum or titan finish... but then you would need wheels to carry it around.

I also find weird when people want smaller lighter DSLR and then complain about its size and grip like in case of XTi...I went XTi exactly because I wanted a lighter camera which would not compromise on features and quality. Hence XTi won the race for me. However if I would not care for the size then D80 would be on top of my list. I so much liked D80 when tested it in the shop.

What I have to admit however, when you start with DSLR you soon realize that size is not critical issue, in fact I plan to add battery grip to my Canon which will make it more like D80... FUNNY THING how your mind changes, huh? And I so much wish my XTi would have a dedicated AF lamp... why Canon canon't do?

As for 9point AF focus, yeap disputable issue, I usually go around with partial or centre weighted.

And to repeat it, I think one cannot go wrong with either DSLR. It is just personal bias. For me both Canons and Nikons are fine. I was well served with my Coolpix before switching to Sony 717 and later to XTi.


On the rest, I seen Canons vs. Nikonians battles here and there. Coldrain is good guy but he simply likes Canon so much that he does not demand Canon paying him for defending their brand so vigorously. I am still grateful to Coldy because he was among the ones who helped me with my choice and believe it or not we were discussing Pentax K100D at that time, not XTi which was my last minute choice when in the shop. So go figure.

erichlund
08-11-2007, 11:57 AM
lens in future:
I meant original brand lenses, not third party lens. I find Canon line up a tad better in this area plus outstanding range of primes. Speaking of third party I am aware that most produce lenses for both Canons and Nikons.

As regards comparison, I still find for the class and purpose a comparison between XTi and D40 appropriate while I find D80 and 30D to be more of a prosumer DSLR. This is just a personal point of view. The fact that Nikon cut D40 on features just shows the policy of Nikon but does not mean you cannot compare this to XTi. I also think D40 shares market with XTi while D80 steals from 30D.

As for plastic feel, I agree, I just wanted to point that it is about feel, not about quality. I find XTi plastic very durable and solid. It does not feel cheap in anyway to me unlike some people claim. Of course it would be nicer to have XTi built in SD700 or SD800 quality with aluminum or titan finish... but then you would need wheels to carry it around.

I also find weird when people want smaller lighter DSLR and then complain about its size and grip like in case of XTi...I went XTi exactly because I wanted a lighter camera which would not compromise on features and quality. Hence XTi won the race for me. However if I would not care for the size then D80 would be on top of my list. I so much liked D80 when tested it in the shop.

What I have to admit however, when you start with DSLR you soon realize that size is not critical issue, in fact I plan to add battery grip to my Canon which will make it more like D80... FUNNY THING how your mind changes, huh? And I so much wish my XTi would have a dedicated AF lamp... why Canon canon't do?

As for 9point AF focus, yeap disputable issue, I usually go around with partial or centre weighted.
Partial or Center Weighted are metering modes. Metering can be tied to the focus point, like Nikon's spot meter, but otherwise, you really should not discuss these as some sort of equivalent thing. The metering mode determines what exposure (shutter speed and f-stop) the camera uses for a shot. The focus point determines only what the camera uses to focus on, which in turn determines where the plane of actual focus will be.

And to repeat it, I think one cannot go wrong with either DSLR. It is just personal bias. For me both Canons and Nikons are fine. I was well served with my Coolpix before switching to Sony 717 and later to XTi.


On the rest, I seen Canons vs. Nikonians battles here and there. Coldrain is good guy but he simply likes Canon so much that he does not demand Canon paying him for defending their brand so vigorously. I am still grateful to Coldy because he was among the ones who helped me with my choice and believe it or not we were discussing Pentax K100D at that time, not XTi which was my last minute choice when in the shop. So go figure.


The one thing Nikon needs to do is redesign their lineup of primes. If they truly intend to remove focus motors (long term), then they need to start now with the primes, because they will need to have AF-S. While they are at that, it makes sense for them to optimize the lenses for digital. I don't mean making them DX format, I mean correcting the light path so that it leaves the lens near vertical to the plane of the sensor. If they do this well, it should not impact film performance, but shoud greatly improve digital performance.

OTOH: I can only hope that Nikon doesn't get completely caught up in the lens review is an MTF review thing. Nikon has a history of crafting their lenses based on the intended use for the focal length range of the lens.

For instance, the 85 f1.4 has no ED glass, not because ED glass was not available, but because ED glass is not as good for skin tones, and the 85 f1.4 is first and foremost, a protrait lens. There are some who call for a new 85 f1.4 with AF-S, because the focus is a little slow on the current lens. AF-S for future compatibility I can accept, but a studio portrait lens is more likely to be manually focused by a pro portrait photographer, so what does (s)he need AF-S for?

fionndruinne
08-11-2007, 01:02 PM
I've used the XTi and the D40, and I don't think it quite fair to compare them as two of a kind. The XTi has almost all the features of the D80, just crammed (yes, I do believe crammed is appropriate, given the features and price versus size and build) into a smaller package, and also carried a price tag of over $800. That just doesn't compare to the D40's original price of $600, or its much less "packed" range of features and styling. Basically, the D40 has had this much fuss made about it precisely for its pricerange, and deserves to be separate from a camera costing over $200 more.

The D40 is very much the result of a different thinking process from Canon's XTi. While the XTi comes from purposing to give the most features for the money while thinking less about build quality and ergonomics, the D40 takes the approach of a truly "entry-level" camera, disposing of the features which are really more appropriate to a "semi-pro" model, and paying a good deal of attention to making the camera ergonomically sounds and a comfortable and enjoyable tool. Both methods have merit.

XaiLo
08-11-2007, 03:24 PM
The reason I went to this forum was I saw a few postings from Nikonians on Canon forum.

No problem, dude.

1) It is not fair to compare XTi to D80 or D70, instead you have to compare it to D40.

A little elaboration would helpful here, how is it unfair when feature wise it is closer to the D80 than it ever will be to the D40

2) Talk about plastic feel of XTi is a bit weird because D40 is also made of plastic. In fact both cameras are made of high quality plastic but finish is different which creates different feel.

I beg to differ here, my S2/S3, the XT, and XTi, all feel like they use the same grade of plastic and speaking from past experience I was not impressed. And at least when I compared the cameras when you grip the D40 it feels solid in camparison to the XT/XTi I'm not talking about texture I mean construction.

3) It is true, D40 has a better grip, but I find no problem with XTi grip either. However if you want that solid feel in your hand you must consider D80 or 30D instead of XTi or D40.

Granted, but this thread is about the D40 and XT...

4) It is true, sometimes third party lenses have AF problem on Canon, but it usually stems from a sample quality issue rather than from a camera issue. I have heard Tamron has the edge over Sigma AF on Canon.

OK.

5) I have not tested kit lenses of D40 but reviewers indeed tell about better quality on D40. Question however is how long you want to live with kit lenses? Also same reviewers say kit lenses on Pentax or Olympus are better. So then what?

That would seem to be a personal and a case by case question. I've heard many say X lens just stays on my camera. My first SLR never saw a second lens.

7) As regards lenses this will matter a lot in future when you want to step up from kit and see what both cameras can do. AF motor issue, it can pain you with D40 if you plan to step up or have Nikon non AF-S lenses already.

i don't believe this is anywhere near as much of an issue as people make it out to be. agreed if you already have non af-s nikon lens you wont be able to use them however i would suspect if you have non afs kit lens then you aren;t new to dslr and so would not be considering the d40.

I'm not sure what it is? that is trying to be communicated here what specific ranges are you alluding to? Is it a pain or is it not? Step Up? Well there's the 18-70mm, 18-135mm, 18-200mm, 24-85mm, 17-55mm and that's just Nikon's offerings. Third party manurfactuers are providing lenses now for the D40. Here's a partial list of compatible lenses.

List of current compatible AF-Lenses for the D40/D40X:
Nikkor:

AF-S DX 12-24mm 4.0G ED-IF

AF-S 17-35mm 2.8D ED-IF

AF-S DX 17-55mm 2.8G ED-IF

AF-S DX 18-55mm 3.5-5.6G

AF-S DX 18-70mm 3.5-4.5G ED-IF

AF-S DX 18-135mm 3.5-5.6 ED-IF

AF-S VR DX 18-200mm 3.5-5.6G IF-ED

AF-S 24-85mm 3.5-4.5G IF-ED

AF-S VR 24-120mm 3.5-5.6G ED-IF

AF-S 28-70mm 2,8 IF-ED

AF-S DX 55-200mm 4-5.6G ED

AF-S VR 55–200mm 4–5.6G IF-ED

AF-S VR 70-200mm 2.8G ED-IF

AF-S VR 70-300mm 4.5-5.6G

AF-S 80-200mm 2.8 ED-IF

AF-S VR 105mm 2.8G

AF-S VR 200mm 2.0G ED-IF

AF-S VR 200-400mm 4.0G ED-IF

AF-I 300mm 2.8D IF-ED

AF-S 300mm 2.8D IF-ED

AF-S 300mm 4.0D ED-IF

AF-S VR 300mm 2.8 ED-IF

AF-I 400mm 2.8 D IF-ED

AF-S 400mm 2.8D ED-IF

AF-I 500mm 4.0D IF-ED

AF-S 500mm 4.0D ED-IF

AF-I 600mm 4.0D IF-ED

AF-S 600mm 4.0D ED-IF


Sigma:

10-20mm 4-5.6 EX DC HSM

12-24mm 4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM

14mm 2.8 EX

17-35mm 2.8-4.0 EX DG

17-70mm f2.8-4.5 DC Macro HSM New

18-50mm 3.5-5.6 DC HSM New

18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro HSM New

30mm 1.4 DC

50-500mm 4.0-6.3 EX DG

50-150mm 2.8 EX DC HSM

55-200mm 4-5.6 DC HSM New

70-200mm 2,8 EX DG Makro

80-200mm 2.8 EX DG Makro

80-400mm 4-5.6 EX OS

100-300mm 4.0 EX DG

120-300mm 2.8 EX DG

150mm 2.8 EX DG MAKRO

180mm 3.5 EX DG MAKRO

300mm 2.8 EX DG APO HSM

300-800mm 5.6 EX DG APO

500mm 4.5 EX DG HSM APO

800mm 5.6 EX DG APO

What's missing? Primes, well you could make a good argument for using the 17-35mm in leiu of a few primes.


9) High quality Nikon lenses sometimes tend to be more expensive than similar quality Canons.

What industry doesn't that statement apply to.

10) Some say XTi straight out of box takes softer images. The way to solve is to boost sharpness in camera. Each camera has its own factory setting, so let this not destruct you.

Granted, but down the road you complain about Nikon red?

12) I would prefer to have control over NR like on D40, but in XTi you cannot switch off DigicII processor but then XTi processor is not very intrusive compared to other cameras.

OK.

13) I personally am more concerned about photo in camera processing, particularly knowing Nikon love for reds (and this you cannot turn off), so sometimes reds become too much red. I used Nikon Coolpix line up in former times and over saturated reds was often a big issue for me. I do not understand why Nikon cannot work out this issue, it lasts for decade.

Like there's always raw and as you noted earlier as with the Canon there are in camera adjustments that can be made. Were you under the impression that Nikon cameras are without ouput setting options?

14) You get no proper RAW software with Nikon, so if you got no Photoshop or similar, you must purchase this separately which adds to your price tag.

Rooz, covered this one pretty well. I've never used Canon's raw converter but then again I'm not inclined to give up photoshop. And how many P&S shooters worry about raw? And if raw is indeed, in someones workflow I would think they would want a comphrehensive solution.

15) Personal taste matters a lot, so that is why some go Nikon and others go Canon. at the end what matters is your choice and your ability to take great pix with your camera, while it does not matter if your DSLR camera is Nikon or Canon or Olympus or else

No argument to be had here, I've been a proponent of the D40 from the beginning and that's not likely to change matter of fact I like it so much I'm considering getting a second one. I've shot a CD cover for a gospel artist using the D40. Me and the D40 went happily to the bank. :)

Gintaras
08-12-2007, 03:02 AM
XaiLo, let me say it clear. BOTH Canon and Nikon are superb cameras, BOTH Canon and Nikon are leaders in DSLR world. One cannot go wrong with either Nikon or Canon. It all depends on your taste and choice. One would be happy with D40, the other with XTI, the one might go for D80 and some by Canon Mark line up…. So what?

In case of red I am former Nikonian (CPX 885, PX995)... so might be I have some idea. I watched prints from a colleague who got D200, and sorry red problem is still there.

On lens line up of Canon and Nikon check. http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html
This means D40 has more limited choice with AF-S right away compared to XTI which uses also EF lenses and the same third party line up.

As for focusing on Canon, right, third party like Sigma tends to have problem. Not so with Tamron and Tokina however. Also, not every Sigma has bad AF issue. Manual focus works well in this case.

For plastic quality of XTI, I own XTI and it has fairly robust plastic, XTI durability is not as bad as some tend to state it here. Of course D40 has a nicer finish on its body, but it is still PLASTIC, NOT MAGNESIUM case, so WHAT this fuss is all about? There is no weather seal on either D40 or XTI … and SO I could not care less about the feel as this is more like discussing if leather seats are better on BMW or Jaguar. Besides for a good feel I would recommend having a nice chick by your side :D

Now let me use happily my XTI and you be happy with Nikon. I would suggest we better post our pix on DSLR photo thread and learn from each other instead of wasting time on never ending topic.:eek:

Rooz
08-12-2007, 03:11 AM
gintaras, i don;t think there is any negative argument going on here mate. just some friendly expressions of differing views. :)

Gintaras
08-12-2007, 05:33 AM
Right Rooz, both Nikon and Canon make superb cameras which can take amazing pix... but as Don and many others said, this is a man behind the camera, not the camera, what determines the quality of pix. :p

What I find ridiculous when people talk about plasticky XTI. I admit that Nikon puts a better plastic finish to D40 which resembles magnesium body feel... still this is plastic and no weather seal to it. So what's the point? XTI uses plastic which feels more plasticky BUT its durability and robustness is as good as on D40 IMO. At least for me this was not an issue since a few months of using XTI. I rather worry about learning curve of taking good pix...:rolleyes:

IMO one does not go wrong with either camera, what matters here is your personal choice and features you want your camera have. That's it. So I would recommend reading reviews, take a look at specifications, BUT then go to a shop and put your hands on cameras of choice and then you feel with which camera you are at home. You can also bring a small memory card to try and save pix which you can later scrutinize on a PC screen.

It was exactly my case when I went to a shop firmly decided on Pentax K100d and when I left this shop I was carrying a new XTI sealed in a box. It was just that story about try it, feel it, buy it. :p

And if service is available in your place there is also a way to rent a camera of your choice for a day to play with and then you have more answers.:rolleyes:

G Weekend to all of you