# Nikon D40x vs D2h? I'm new :)



## Cocktailmunky (Mar 12, 2008)

I'm new to Digital Photography and will be starting college photography classes soon. So I need to get a nice D-SLR camera. I'd like to get the nicest my money can bring me obviously. I found a few used/refurb pro dslr's online at a big retailer for fairly cheap. One of which was a great looking Nikon D2h for around $850. I saw it was $3000+ new about 4yrs ago. Is this camera still considered good today? I read it only had like a 5.4mp sensor, and the newer lower end D40x has a 10.3mp sensor. Is there a difference between the two cameras I should know about that would make the older one still nicer? Any comments or explanations would be extremely appreciated. Thanks ahead of time for helping.


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 12, 2008)

Welcome to the forum.

If you could see both cameras in person and hold them...the differences would be fairly apparent.  The D2 is a pro body and the D40 is a consumer level body.

Mega pixels do not equate to image quality...so more isn't necessarily better.  However, the D40 is a much newer camera and the technology moves pretty fast.

One thing to keep in mind, is that the D40 does not have an internal AF motor, which makes it smaller and lighter but also makes it impossible to autofocus with many Nikon lenses.


----------



## ianm (Mar 12, 2008)

just got me a d40x - and i mean just, it's hardly out the box lol - i'm tarting out too, thought it better to start with something i can work up with rather than the d40. don't actually know anything about the d2h tbh.


----------



## Cocktailmunky (Mar 13, 2008)

Thanks for the feedback. Im still hoping to get more info though. Has anyone ever had or used a D2h? I know it came out like 4yrs ago, has it improved over the years? Is the one from a few years ago still a good camera today? Can I make large prints like 10"-14" plus size with photos from the D2h?


----------



## S2K1 (Mar 13, 2008)

A D2h is a 4.1 megapixel sensor which is typically okay for an 8x10 at 72dpi. Larger than that, you can upsample, but I wouldn't recommend it. If you're starting out, there's no need to get a pro-body. Go with the D40x and learn from there. One major advantage of the  D2h is the ability to shoot 8fps, and unless you're planning to shoot skate sequences, racing, or pro sports on a regular basis, pass on it.


----------



## jlykins (Mar 13, 2008)

ianm said:


> just got me a d40x - and i mean just, it's hardly out the box lol - i'm tarting out too, thought it better to start with something i can work up with rather than the d40. don't actually know anything about the d2h tbh.


 
This isn't exactly correct. The d40 and the d40x have the same limitations. Actually the d40x has one major limitation that would cause me to avoid it as a purchase which is the flash sync speed. The d40 has a higher flash sync speed than the d40x which is mort important than more megapixels.  If you are planning on moving much farther beyond the kit lens and maybe a telephoto, I would step up to a d80, or if you don't have the money for that, you can pick up a refurbished or used D70 for about the same price as a D40. The D70 will give you a whole lot more flexibility than the D40,D40x,D60. It will allow you use the Nikkor AF lens' which can save you lots of cash.


----------



## D-50 (Mar 13, 2008)

you would never want to print an 8x10 or any photo at 72dpi, that is a webviewing resolution when printing you'll need at least 200dpi but 300 is better.


----------



## ianm (Mar 13, 2008)

jlykins said:


> This isn't exactly correct.



What's incorrect about what i said? I didn't make any statements


----------



## jlykins (Mar 13, 2008)

ianm said:


> What's incorrect about what i said? I didn't make any statements


Maybe I was misunderstanding what you said, but when you say that the d40x is something that you can work up with, I have to disagree. You will be just as limited with it as you will with the d40 and the d60. Just my .02 though.


----------



## djacobox372 (May 5, 2008)

If you're looking for used camera alternatives I'd suggest looking at these cameras:

D200 (a D80 on steroids for about $800)

D70 (A d40 with the features of a d80 for $300!)


----------



## Rhubarb (May 6, 2008)

djacobox372 said:


> If you're looking for used camera alternatives I'd suggest looking at these cameras:
> 
> D200 (a D80 on steroids for about $800)
> 
> D70 (A d40 with the features of a d80 for $300!)



+4388  :thumbup:


----------



## NateS (May 6, 2008)

My D70s is sooooo much better than my previous D40 (for me).  Compare specs and there's a lot of features that make this true besides the AF motor.  

Whoever said that a D2H w/ 4 megapixels shouldn't be printed over an 8x10 is just flat WRONG.  I recently printed two pictures from my D70s that were cropped to a 4mp equivalent in 16x24 and not only was there not a pixel in sight.....the clarity and overall picture looked as good or better than an 8x10 version.

I can't express how unimportant megapixel is on a DSLR to most situations.  I would have no hesitation at all printing a 16x24 from a D2H to sell and you could probably go larger than that if you wanted to with minimal quality loss.


----------



## JimmyO (May 6, 2008)

If you are new to DSLR you will have a much easier time with the d40x. Even after using the d40x for a while and switching to d1h it was really hard. The controls are alot different. If i were you i would stick with consumer cameras like the d40/d70/d50


----------



## JimmyO (May 6, 2008)

And btw, the d1h is 2.7 mega pixels and i have gotten pristine prints at 8x10


----------



## Antithesis (May 6, 2008)

If your buying your first dSLR, starting with a pro body is a mistake. Granted, you will be in a photography course, but it will be intimidating to learn and use. All else equal, the D40x will take better pictures. If your going to go cover a war somewhere and need a bombproof body with fast FPS, get a D2H. If your shooting flowers for a photography class and you need a little help from your camera to actually take images, get the D40x. Not to mention the D2H weighs probably four times that of the D40x, probably more.


----------



## djacobox372 (May 9, 2008)

I'm surprised that people have failed to mention that the d2h's photo quality is inferior in every way to the d40.  

Typically the consumer cameras are only a 2-3 years behind the top pro cameras, and the d2h is more then 5 years older then the d40.

If you could just take the sensor out of the d40 and put it in a d2h then you'd have something.  

If you want the picture quality of the d40 but with a few more pro-level features then I suggest you snatch up one of the many used d70 outfits on ebay.


----------

