40D or more for the D90?

iSam

iSam

iSam

Soldato
Joined
12 Aug 2004
Posts
6,105
Hi guys, haven't posted on here for ages, but I used to frequent these forums and appreciate the knowledge in the photo department!

I have been using my Dad's Sony A-100 for a while now, and although its a good camera, I want my own system. I'm not a complete noob and was looking at the 40D and D90. Obviously the D90 is more, but the 40D is a great price second hand. I've also heard good things about the 17-85mm 40D kit lens too.

I have used both and ergonomics wise I wasn't fussed as both felt very good. I want to get into landscape photography so probably the Tokina 11-18 would be my first choice lens on either body.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks
 
The D90 is a great camera with a newer sensor than the 40D.
There is nothing interesting about the canon 17-85 that I have heard, but I don't shoot Canon. The Nikon 18-105 kit lens is very sharp, but theits the Nikon 16-85 that is stunningly sharp.
 
I shoot with a 40D but would probably recommend the D90 over it, I've had a play with mates and while I didn't get along with the controls having only ever shot canon I did appreciate the increased quality of the sensor and AF :) Budget dependent of course....

Never shot with a 17-85, I still have bad memories of my 400D kit 18-55 lens *Shudders* I got the 40D body-only because I was upgrading rather than starting from fresh :)
 
Sorry to take this slightly off topic. How does the D80 compare with the D90 and 40D.

I've been to look at a few new cameras and the D90 is way too much. From what I can tell there isn't much different on the D80.
 
Last edited:
The D80 sensor is very dated, noise at ISO 400 :/

Steer clear of that Canon 17-85mm lens, it's a nasty bit of kit, soft and low build quality. The D90 is a nice camera though, fairly superior to the 40D as far as I can see. HD movies too!
 
Smashing, thanks for the replies, Nikon D90 it is then! :)

Anyone use the 50mm 1.8? Seems like a fast, cheap prime.
 
K.C. Leblanc said:
Sorry to take this slightly off topic. How does the D80 compare with the D90 and 40D.

I've been to look at a few new cameras and the D90 is way too much. From what I can tell there isn't much different on the D80.
Click to expand...

The D80 is the worst DSLr Nikon made. Doesn't mean it is a bad camera, but not in the same class as the D90. The sensor was fairly dated when he camera was released. The D5000 would be a much better camera. If you are looking 2nd hand, then I a D70 would be better than D80 if you find one very cheap (otherwise the D80 is better than the D70)
 
iSam said:
Smashing, thanks for the replies, Nikon D90 it is then! :)

Anyone use the 50mm 1.8? Seems like a fast, cheap prime.
Click to expand...

The Nikon 50 1.8 is great, very sharp and reasonable build quality. I wouldn't buy instead of the D90 kit lens though.
 
iSam said:
Even for low light landscapes?
Click to expand...

For landscapes you should be tripod mounted, so light level is not a factor. Shooting wide open is pretty useless for landscape work.

50mm on DX I would find a strange focal length for landscape wor, neither wide nor tele. The 50mm is a portrait lens more than anything.

Anyway, the reason I suggest to get the kit lens is flexibility. You wont loose any sharpness with the 18-105.
 
D.P. said:
For landscapes you should be tripod mounted, so light level is not a factor. Shooting wide open is pretty useless for landscape work.

50mm on DX I would find a strange focal length for landscape wor, neither wide nor tele. The 50mm is a portrait lens more than anything.

Anyway, the reason I suggest to get the kit lens is flexibility. You wont loose any sharpness with the 18-105.
Click to expand...

I read a few reviews and it seems like the 18-105 at 18mm is soft. The lower 18-55m is sharper.

I'm being a bit of a plank, on DX sensor I would use a 35mm 1.4 for low light landscapes before I could fork out of a proper wide angle.

I agree, the 50mm I would use for portraits as it would allow me to have a shallow DOF.

Thanks for the responses by the way. Very much appreciated.
 
I have a D90 and love it to bits. Awesome camera. That said I havent used a similar Canon too much but I find them a littl weird to hold. And the 50mm 1.8 is awesome. Cheap and fantastic for portraits. I spent ages deciding between the Nikon / Canon models but went for the Nikon for the superior low light shooting. I suspect you will not be disappointed. The only thing I was disappointed with is the 18 - 105 kit lens. I gave it to my brother after a month of shooting with it. Useless I thought, particularly at the 18mm scale. But then I prefer using prime lenses and using my feet for zoom if need be.
 
D.P. said:
The D80 is the worst DSLr Nikon made. Doesn't mean it is a bad camera, but not in the same class as the D90. The sensor was fairly dated when he camera was released. The D5000 would be a much better camera. If you are looking 2nd hand, then I a D70 would be better than D80 if you find one very cheap (otherwise the D80 is better than the D70)
Click to expand...
The real problem with the D80 (and the D90 to a much lesser extent) is that the exposure is tied to the active focus sensor which can lead to quite bad over-exposure. Coming from a Sony DSC-R1 which just got it right every time, I was very disappointed with the results from my D80 and swapping it for a D90 was a great relief.
 
Snapshot said:
The real problem with the D80 (and the D90 to a much lesser extent) is that the exposure is tied to the active focus sensor which can lead to quite bad over-exposure. Coming from a Sony DSC-R1 which just got it right every time, I was very disappointed with the results from my D80 and swapping it for a D90 was a great relief.
Click to expand...

That was the biggest issue.
But the sensor was kind of old and noisy, and the updates from the D70 were mostly minimal. Was the smallest increase in performance for any Nikon DSLR generation.

But as I said, not a bad camera at all and stood up to competition ok. Just not a classic like the D70 or D90 (or D300, D700,D3, D2x.....). It aged badly as well.
 
D.P. said:
The Nikon 50 1.8 is great, very sharp and reasonable build quality. I wouldn't buy instead of the D90 kit lens though.
Click to expand...

I would. Kit lenses suck balls, and you know they do.

As for advice for the OP, do NOT spend money on a new D90. Until you've learnt the basics, a second hand D70 or Canon equivalent will be more than good enough.

As you're starting from scratch, what's most important is to decide whether you are going to be a Nikon or Canon user and build up good quality glass in whichever system you choose.

Remember - average glass on a super expensive body = fail; super expensive glass on an average body = win. The only caveat being if you have no inspiration and no talent then it doesn't matter what you use!

Learn the basics, take your time and don't take criticism to heart. Try and replicate those images you are especially fond of, but develop your own style in the process. Don't take it too seriously, and have fun! :)
 
The Mad Rapper said:
I would. Kit lenses suck balls, and you know they do.

As for advice for the OP, do NOT spend money on a new D90. Until you've learnt the basics, a second hand D70 or Canon equivalent will be more than good enough.

As you're starting from scratch, what's most important is to decide whether you are going to be a Nikon or Canon user and build up good quality glass in whichever system you choose.

Remember - average glass on a super expensive body = fail; super expensive glass on an average body = win. The only caveat being if you have no inspiration and no talent then it doesn't matter what you use!

Learn the basics, take your time and don't take criticism to heart. Try and replicate those images you are especially fond of, but develop your own style in the process. Don't take it too seriously, and have fun! :)
Click to expand...


Perhaps Canon kit lenses are useless, but Nikon produce a number of very good kit lenses. The Nikon 18-70 and 18-105 produce excellent images for the money. The only way you will get better images than such lenses is to get a Nikon 16-85 or a Nikon 17-55 2.8. Neither win any value for money awards.

The 18-105 as a landscape lens is as sharp as many pro lenses. Is it a 24-70 2.8 thousand pound lens, no.
 
D.P. said:
Perhaps Canon kit lenses are useless, but Nikon produce a number of very good kit lenses. The Nikon 18-70 and 18-105 produce excellent images for the money. The only way you will get better images than such lenses is to get a Nikon 16-85 or a Nikon 17-55 2.8. Neither win any value for money awards.

The 18-105 as a landscape lens is as sharp as many pro lenses. Is it a 24-70 2.8 thousand pound lens, no.
Click to expand...

I've been a Nikon user for the last 15 years, so I didn't make my comments lightly. Whether the quality of the images from the Nikon lenses are 'excellent' is, with respect, debatable. My view is that they aren't.

I'd rather Nikon just sold the bare body without a crap, compromised lens. People should invest in good glass from the start.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom