# d90 or 40D?



## tonynitz (Feb 4, 2009)

im looking to up grade to either ther the d90 or the 40d. As of right now im leaning towards the d90 because of the better sensor and more megapixels. I was wondering what one prefored better in low light and shows less noise. Any advice you guys have before i make my final choice? thanks


----------



## chrisburke (Feb 4, 2009)

well do you prefer nikon or canon? if nikon, go with the d90, if canon the 40d... 

what are you upgrading from???


----------



## und3r.th3.sink (Feb 4, 2009)

Nikon's are really user friendly and great cameras. The D90 is amazing (my friend has one, and I have spent lots of time with it), but the video recording component is not the best. I say forget about the video component and get the D90 regardless, but if that does concern you go with the canon.


----------



## tonynitz (Feb 4, 2009)

a canon rebel xti, i want to get a camera i can keep for a few years and still be a good camera.  I don't really have a preference.


----------



## chrisburke (Feb 4, 2009)

if you already have canon, you should stick with canon, because your use to it, and likely already have canon lens...


----------



## tonynitz (Feb 4, 2009)

i sold all but one lens because i thought i was for sure gonna switch to nikon, now i'm not sure.


but what one has better images in low light?


----------



## chrisburke (Feb 4, 2009)

its mostly going to be your lens which determins quality.. especially in low light.. and nice f1.8 or 1.4 will give nice shots in low light


----------



## inTempus (Feb 4, 2009)

Tony,

I was in the same boat you are now not long ago.  I was ready to jump ship from Canon to Nikon, specifically the D90.  I spent a lot of time researching the 50D and the D90 then went to a local camera store and fiddled with each side-by-side for quite some time and here's what I found:



> This week I gave myself the opportunity to reevaluate the 50D and the D90. I spent quite a while driving the lady nuts at the local camera store playing with both. Shooting pics, playing with the auto-focus in various light conditions, playing with the menus, figuring out what features I like and don't like... what I need and don't need.
> 
> I'm not predisposed to any particular brand as I just got in the DSLR game about a month ago.  I was really torn between the D90 and the 40D (at the time) and even after my purchase continued to research the D90 and compare it to my 40D.  I sold my 40D this week and started over (I do things like that).
> 
> ...



If I were you, I would look also at the 50D.  I had a 40D and upgraded to the 50D and absolutely love it.


----------



## und3r.th3.sink (Feb 4, 2009)

tony knight?.......


----------



## msgsti217 (Feb 4, 2009)

i would go with the 40D.  i've had one for about a year and love it.

hey tharmsen, how much different is the 50D than the 40?


----------



## DRoberts (Feb 4, 2009)

D90 vs 40D is almost apples to oranges. If you are looking in the range of the D90 then you should be looking at a more a comparable Canon, which would be the 5D,  the 5D M II or at very least the 50D as mentioned above.
Also as mentioned if you already have a Canon it might be good to stay with it, especially if you already have lenses or other accessories.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 4, 2009)

msgsti217 said:


> i would go with the 40D.  i've had one for about a year and love it.
> 
> hey tharmsen, how much different is the 50D than the 40?


The difference is subtle, but if you've used a 40D for a while you might find the differences pretty significant.

The LCD screen is AMAZING.  It's probably the best 3" screen I've ever seen on a camera.  It makes the 40D's look really bad by comparison.  I never relied on my 40D's LCD screen to see if a shot was really in focus or not.  Half the time I thought it was, then when I got home I found out it really wasn't.  With the 50D you can easily tell, it's like a HDTV vs. an old school analog TV.

The Quick Menu is extremely useful.  I can touch the set button and have access to all camera settings.  It's great for low light shooting instead of fumbling for the backlight button on the top LCD display.  I use this all the time.

The micro-adjustment for your lenses is another useful feature.  You can calibrate each lens to the camera and the camera remembers the settings (for each lens).

Live View now has it's own button (the print button we all never use).  Not only does it have it's own button, but it now can focus while in Live View mode.  This coupled with the much higher quality LCD screen means you can actually use it.

Those are the big things, but there are a bunch of little things in the menu system that are new/improved.  

All together, the 50D really is a much improved camera.  Is it worth the upgrade cost?  For me, it was.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 4, 2009)

DRoberts said:


> D90 vs 40D is almost apples to oranges. If you are looking in the range of the D90 then you should be looking at a more a comparable Canon, which would be the 5D,  the 5D M II or at very least the 50D as mentioned above.
> Also as mentioned if you already have a Canon it might be good to stay with it, especially if you already have lenses or other accessories.


I don't know if I agree with that.  I think the D90 is evenly matched with the 40D.  The 50D, in my view, passes the D90 by.

The D300 is a direct competitor of the 50D.

The D90 couldn't come close to competing with a 5DMkII.  That thing is way ahead of the D90.  The D90, after all, is a plastic body, crop sensor semi-pro.  The D700 and 5DMkII are full-framed, metal bodied professional cameras.


----------



## sultan (Feb 4, 2009)

DRoberts said:


> D90 vs 40D is almost apples to oranges. If you are looking in the range of the D90 then you should be looking at a more a comparable Canon, which would be the 5D,  the 5D M II



Are you kidding? You think comparing the D90 to a 5DMII that costs nearly 3 times as much is a fair comparison? The 40D is the closest thing in Canon's range to the D90, price-wise. Of the two, the D90 has slightly better detail and high ISO performance, and a much better LCD. The 40D is tougher built though, with a metal body frame and weather sealing. They are both good cameras. Get whichever one feels right in your hands.


----------



## feRRari4756 (Feb 4, 2009)

DRoberts said:


> D90 vs 40D is almost apples to oranges. If you are looking in the range of the D90 then you should be looking at a more a comparable Canon, which would be the 5D,  the 5D M II or at very least the 50D as mentioned above.
> Also as mentioned if you already have a Canon it might be good to stay with it, especially if you already have lenses or other accessories.



Hahaha. The 5D mkII is comprable to the d700....


----------



## tonynitz (Feb 5, 2009)

thanks for the help everyone.
dpreview says that the nikon d90 tends to blow highlights a lot, anyone with a d90 have that problem?


----------



## Slaphead (Feb 9, 2009)

tonynitz said:


> thanks for the help everyone.
> dpreview says that the nikon d90 tends to blow highlights a lot, anyone with a d90 have that problem?



I've noticed it can be a bit hot, but really only in situations that would challenging a challenging exposure anyway - such as a white swan in full sunlight with half the swan in shadow, or, thick cloudy haze that makes that makes the sky appear bright white.

In both instances I was able to pull back a hell of a lot of detail, especially the cloudy haze shot where I was able to pull back textures in the clouds that I simply couldn't see while I was there because it was so bright.

You can use the exposure compensation button if you think the camera is likely to over expose a scene, and if you dont want to have to think about doing this you can fine tune the exposure for each metering mode in 1/6ev steps. So if you don't like the way it exposes direct from the factory you can make it expose the way you want.


----------



## AlexColeman (Feb 9, 2009)

I would say the D90, I have tried them both, but it was D90 for me. Spend your money on a good lens, like a 16-85 and you will be happy.


----------



## Atlas77 (Feb 9, 2009)

Dont compare the 40D and the D90, compare it to the 5D or 50D.
If you have problems with the video, look at the D300 its not much much more.


----------



## ANDS! (Feb 9, 2009)

Here are the actual side-by-side comparions of the 50D and the D90.

Cons for the 50D:



> *  High ISO performance worse than 40D
> * Reduced dynamic range in the shadow areas compared to EOS 40D
> * Per-pixel detail not as good as on good 10 or 12 megapixel cameras
> * High-end lenses required to get the most out of the camera
> ...



Cons for the D90:



> *  Over-enthusiastic metering a little prone to blown highlights
> * Very soft (default) JPEG output compared to its peers
> * We believe more of the captured dynamic range could be incorporated into Jpegs
> * Menus getting long and complex (though well organized and differentiated)
> ...



As always, the Nikon suffers from metering control; anyone who uses one knows that and always exposes for it anyway.  Both suffer from white balance issues indoors - again, shooting in RAW helps this on either body.  If you were looking at low light performance though, it is glass AND iso performance that will help you here.  The D90 has ISO performance on par with the D300 (which is to be expected).


----------



## Seefutlung (Feb 9, 2009)

You are on the right path of comparing IQ as the most important factor in choosing a camera. "Feel" is the worse criteria to use in choosing a camera. The moment the viewfinder reaches your eye the only feel you have is in the shutter release finger and eye. 

Remember when you purchase a dSLR that you are getting a camera system. Both Canon and Nikon have more than sufficient lenses and accessories to satisfy most photographers. If you are into something extraordinary ... say astro or macro ... make sure the camera system you choose supports that specialty with hardware and software.

Canon hardware seems to be a tad cheaper than Nikon for equal/similar equipment. One of the prime keys to low-noise at elevated-ISOs is a CMOS sensor. All Canon dSLR cameras utilize CMOS sensors ... only the most expensive Nikons use CMOS. So if you ever need/desire a second body you will have more choices and less expensive choices with Canon than Nikon (using low-noise at high-ISO as a prime consideration). The 5D has held the title of low-noise at higher ISO for quite a few years, the latest high-end cameras from Canon and Nikon has stripped the 5D of that title ... but the difference is not visibily significant.

You won't see a significant difference in IQ between the 40D, D90, 50D and/or a 5D up to an 8x10. It takes 50% more MPs to make a visible difference in IQ. The MP difference between all the above cameras is insignificant. 

Nikons are far more sexy looking than the chubby Canons (this is important in my book.)

Personally, I feel that with the D90 or the 40D/50D you will be completely happy. Both camera lines are designed for the human hand and one will easily adapt to either manufactors design. I would probably go with Canon because of equal but less expensive lenses and due to the greater and less expensive choices of low-noise, high ISO cameras. 

A few photogs that I respect have recently purchased the 50D. Initially they were really disappointed with the performance ... but they learned that had to turn-off all the in-camera noise reduction handlers and viola! They feel the resolution is superior to the 40D.

Gary


PS- It is hard to qualify opinions on the internet ... should you choose/consider a person's opinion as a deciding factor make sure you visit his/her photo site to help you qualify their experience and skill level. 
G


PPS- Direct comparisons between Nikon and Canon are not easy because they tend to stagger their cameras features and prices. If you had a stair with the lowest step being the cheapest camera with the least features and the top step being the most expensive camera w/ most features.

The steps will alternate between Nikon and Canon with no steps having both a Canon and a Nikon.
G

PPPS- All things being equal ... then go for "feel" as the last and least important qualifier for a camera purchase.
G


----------



## SlimPaul (Feb 9, 2009)

I would say, definitely D90! I've used Canon before and Nikon's obviously better in any aspect!


----------



## ANDS! (Feb 9, 2009)

SlimPaul said:


> I would say, definitely D90! I've used Canon before and Nikon's obviously better in any aspect!



Except price.  Of course, price between bodies is pretty much the only difference.  Lenses, and accessories you generally are going to pay the same between the two companies.  

OP also needs to look at not only the bodies, but the various "extras" that are available from each manufacturer.  For example Nikons Speedlight system - to the best of my knowledge Canon does not have as robust an off-flash system as Nikon does.


----------

