# Nikon D40X vs Nikon D90 ISO and Sensor



## akazoly (Sep 21, 2010)

The Nikon D40X starts at ISO100.
The Nikon D90 starts at ISO200.

Which starting point is better, ISO100 or ISO200?

I'm willing to sell my Nikon D40X and buy a D90. I need the built-in focus motor for the 50mm f/1.8 lens.
I heard the D90 uses a CMOS sensor. Is it as good as a CDD sensor (D40X) in terms of quality?

Thanks!


----------



## tirediron (Sep 21, 2010)

In theory, the lower the ISO, the better in terms of grain ("noise") and general image quality, BUT the CMOS sensor the D90 is superior to that of the D40x in terms of high-ISO rendering as well as dynamic range.  All of that aside, the D40x is a good camera, and under most circumstances, you're not going to be able to tell the difference between the two in terms of IQ.  I'm not sure that I would say it's worth the cost just to have auto-focus on that one lens.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 21, 2010)

"Newer is better".

"BETTER IS BETTER".

A camera is not just its sensor, but also the entire AA filter array, the electronics, and the in-camera image processing software and methods. The D90 has a slightly better-performing sensor performance than even the D300...the D90 has one of the best-performing APS-C sensors in current cameras that are actually on the market.


----------



## Garbz (Sep 22, 2010)

The lowest starting point is the best. For the D90 that is ISO200, for the D40x that is ISO100. Neither have any significant meaning when compared to the other because they are effectively the lowest native sensitivity of the system. That's the key word "system". Not sensor, not ISO, but system. 

You can give me the finest best sensor in the world and I will design an amp for you that can produce nothing by noise from its output. The simple fact is the D40x is ancient, and the D90 incorporates several years of advancements in camera electronics design.


----------



## michaelleggero (Sep 22, 2010)

i have both cameras, and the d90 is a far superior camera.  plus now that there are new nikon cameras announced you can probably get a d90 used for a really good price.   i would not buy one new because simply for $200ish more you can get the d7000 which seems to be an awesome camera

Mike Leggero

http://www.michaelleggero.com


----------



## IgsEMT (Sep 22, 2010)

+3 - on all of the above


----------



## KmH (Sep 22, 2010)

michaelleggero said:


> i have both cameras, and the d90 is a far superior camera. plus now that there are new nikon cameras announced you can probably get a d90 used for a really good price. i would not buy one new because simply for $200ish more you can get the d7000 which seems to be an awesome camera
> 
> Mike Leggero
> 
> http://www.michaelleggero.com


Refurbished D90's are about $775, new D90's are about $900 (but not readily available at the moment) and the D7000 is $1200.

Plus, battery life is significantly longer with the D90, it has a better low-pass filter than the D40x can provide and Nikon makes a nice vertical grip for the D90.


----------



## David Dvir (Sep 22, 2010)

D90, hands down.  No questions... especially with the drop in price you're going to see!


----------



## Jcampbelll (Sep 23, 2010)

I got my refurbished D90 this week for $700 no tax, free shipping.


----------



## SrBiscuit (Sep 25, 2010)

yeah d90 prices are dropping like a bad habit...i really think im ready for an upgrade, and a d90 would be HUGE for me, but that d7000 looks mighty tasty for a bit more scratch. oi decisions.

oh and for the record

CMOS >>>>>> CCD.


----------



## Garbz (Sep 25, 2010)

SrBiscuit said:


> yeah d90 prices are dropping like a bad habit..



... Strange I find bad habits very hard to drop 

Oh and the CMOS>CCD thing is completely false, a theory created only by the fact that camera manufacturers now use CMOS sensors, and in many cases CCD actually has some slight advantages. The critical part of it comes down to cost and implementation. You can make an implementation of a CCD that is far better than CMOS if you had a sufficient budget. A lot of research equipment is still CCD for some of the factors such as far more linear response and less bloom during readout under lit conditions. I remember nearly falling over myself only 3 years ago getting a quote for a 1mpx CCD for use in a laser laboratory at the uni that was just slightly in excess of $15000, no shutter, no features. CCDs are also what make up a lot of the equipment in space telescopes. And the bloom issue is why nearly all Pro level HD cameras are 3CCD too.

The big problem is no one would buy a Nikon camera for $30000 regardless how good it is


----------



## SrBiscuit (Sep 26, 2010)

oh interesting...i was always under the impression that CMOS iq far exceeded that of CCD.
thanks for that! :thumbup:


----------

