# D100 vs D70 vs D50 vs D40



## Senor Hound (Jun 13, 2008)

Which of the Nikon 6mp cameras would you get and why?  I'm just curious to see other people's opinions on the issue.


----------



## JimmyO (Jun 13, 2008)

Ehhhh
Why do you keep posting these threads?
I understand your trying to find your first DSRL, but its kinda annoying, fyi

If your trying to decide which one to get, what we think doesn't matter, do the research and see what one fits you best. I would take any of them, your pictures will all looks exactly the same.


And basically you posted 3 old out-dated cameras, and one new one. I would pick the D40 because its the latest from Nikon thus it have the newest technology and has more refined features.


----------



## Senor Hound (Jun 13, 2008)

JimmyO said:


> Ehhhh
> Why do you keep posting these threads?
> I understand your trying to find your first DSRL, but its kinda annoying, fyi
> 
> ...



It's okay, your Canon thread was kind of annoying too 

Thank you for your insight.  I really appreciate it.  I'm just bored, that's all.


----------



## GermanyBert (Jun 14, 2008)

I am just a newbie here and from what I see many people don't care much for Ken Rockwell.

Saying that, his page here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm helped me tremendously in making my decision to get a d40.


----------



## passerby (Jun 14, 2008)

There are pros and cons for it, but as Jimmy mentioned above the abvious thing is the new technology is the winner here. 
The good thing about the older nikons is:

1. They can drive the older lenses autofocusing mechanism, D40 can't do that.
2. As second hands they are cheaper therefore good for those with limited budget, or for backup, or just for the fun of it. 

So wich one I would buy now if I intent to buy another one? The answer is the d40 naturally because I have no old lenses to utilise by it. But if I were to buy now with limited budget than I will take any of those 3. As far as taking photos is concern they are just fine cameras. It is the person who will be the master of that mechine.

Make sense?


----------



## JimmyO (Jun 14, 2008)

passerby said:


> The good thing about the older nikons is:
> 
> 1. They can drive the older lenses autofocusing mechanism, D40 can't do that.
> 2. As second hands they are cheaper therefore good for those with limited budget, or for backup, or just for the fun of it.



+1


----------



## Senor Hound (Jun 14, 2008)

Awesome possum!  I'm one of those folks who suffers from buying paralysis, not to mention not having the money right here and now really really is frustrating.  I can't buy anything yet, so all this free time I have, I spend waffling about.

They all have their ups and downs, the D40 is great, but won't let me autofocus with primes.  The D50 is great, but it doesn't have two control wheels or dof preview.  The D70 is great, but its noisier than the first two (according to reviews), and the D100 is great but its so old and the image processing has come so far since then.

As I said before, thanks for the answers.  You all are so cool!


----------



## Ihaveaquestion (Jun 14, 2008)

Your first DSLR will show you what you really want in a camera. What you shoot and the things that would better suit your photography. The first thing is to pick up your camera. Shoot and learn then by the time your ready to upgrade you will have a real idea what your needs are. But remember there is always bigger and better. Unless you can afford a Digital Hasselblad?

Good luck man. Any of those cameras will work just fine.


----------



## JimmyO (Jun 14, 2008)

Senor Hound said:


> Awesome possum!  I'm one of those folks who suffers from buying paralysis, not to mention not having the money right here and now really really is frustrating.  I can't buy anything yet, so all this free time I have, I spend waffling about.
> 
> They all have their ups and downs, the D40 is great, but won't let me autofocus with primes.  The D50 is great, but it doesn't have two control wheels or dof preview.  The D70 is great, but its noisier than the first two (according to reviews), and the D100 is great but its so old and the image processing has come so far since then.
> 
> As I said before, thanks for the answers.  You all are so cool!



The first thing i would eliminate is the D100, its 2 generations back.

Also, i think the d40 is the easiest to learn on by far. The one huge screen and few buttons make it easy to understand why your pictures look the way they do. Also, the D40 has a massive battery length, ive gone a few days snapping off a few hundreds shots each day on one charge.

Also, if your in desperate need of a prime look at the sigma 30mm f/1.4, probably my next purchase. But with primes im usually shooting still objects so MF is NBD.


----------



## reg (Jun 14, 2008)

Nah dude it's really annoying seeing so many of these threads, especially when:

1) You picked cameras that aren't directly competing (Canon xt vs. Nikon d40 anyone?)
2) This lets you do a side-by-side comparison, easily and in the comfort of your own home.


----------



## Rogan (Jun 14, 2008)

i've picked the D50 out of them, for these reasons,

1) I can spend a lot less money on lenses for example i   needed a F2.8 zoom, i picked up a sigma 18-50mm F2.8, yes theres a HSM version but its twice the price.
2) it WAS slightly cheaper body only than the D40, NOT BY MUCH but it was enough to count.
3) i was originally going to get the D70s but its quite a bit more expensive used than a D40 and the old processor etc just wasnt as appealing

i'm not saying this means you should buy a D50, but for me, the D50 was just right or course i would have aloved a bigger screen


----------



## Mav (Jun 14, 2008)

reg said:


> Nah dude it's really annoying seeing so many of these threads, especially when:
> 
> 1) You picked cameras that aren't directly competing (Canon xt vs. Nikon d40 anyone?)
> 2) This lets you do a side-by-side comparison, easily and in the comfort of your own home.


People can compare whatever the heck they want to for one.  Just because it doesn't make sense to you is irrelevant.  It's a perfectly legit comparison if they've decided to go with Nikon and are looking at the affordable used bodies out there.  And there's far more to cameras than spec comparisons at dpreview.  And if you find these threads annoying, then don't reply to them and let those willing to help give their feedback. :roll:


Anyways, I'd go with a D40.  It's got the latest image processing engine of any of the 6MP cameras and the high ISO performance is great.  The screen is large, and it's easy to make lots of adjustments quickly with the large info screen on the back rather than the tiny LCD on top which is difficult to see.  The top LCD isn't illuminated on the D50 either which makes it even harder to read or impossible at night.  You can still use the primes that aren't AF-S too.  Just select the AF sensor you want to use, manually focus, and watch for the AF confirmation dot in the lower left hand corner of the screen.  You still get electronic focus assistance.  This works perfectly fine for static subjects wide open, and you can even do pretty well with slowly moving ones if you're far enough away (larger depth of field) or are stopped down to maybe f/2.8 or so, and a little practice of course.  When you upgrade to a higher end body you've still got a great little backup camera.  The D40 is so good that I actually don't even consider it "secondary" to my D80.  It actually has a sharper output than the D80 does!

If you really want to play with primes and really want to have autofocus support, you can either get a D50 or D70, or wait a few years for Nikon to get their prime lineup updated.  Sigma has a 30mm f/1.4 HSM which is great, and supposedly they have a 50mm f/1.4 HSM coming too.  Every month that goes by, the limitation of not having the old screw drive motor is becoming less and less of an issue.  It's sorta like when the Apple iMac came out and it didn't have a floppy drive built in.  People all screamed bloody murder, but look at where the floppy drive is today.  It's ancient history.  A lot of these newer AF-S lenses give you far more than just AF-S.  They're flat out superior optically and better optimized for digital sensors as well.  The Nikon 70-300VR is a great example.  It's $500 vs $300 or $150 for the older ones, but blows them both out of the water in terms of image quality.


----------



## reg (Jun 14, 2008)

Mav said:


> People can compare whatever the heck they want to for one.  Just because it doesn't make sense to you is irrelevant.  It's a perfectly legit comparison if they've decided to go with Nikon and are looking at the affordable used bodies out there.  And there's far more to cameras than spec comparisons at dpreview.  And if you find these threads annoying, then don't reply to them and let those willing to help give their feedback. :roll:



Did I suggest they couldn't? No? Okay then. All I'm saying is that comparing cameras from different generations makes no sense. THEY'RE FROM DIFFERENT GENERATIONS!!

Follow me around much?


----------



## Senor Hound (Jun 14, 2008)

reg said:


> Did I suggest they couldn't? No? Okay then. All I'm saying is that comparing cameras from different generations makes no sense. THEY'RE FROM DIFFERENT GENERATIONS!!
> 
> Follow me around much?



I compared them cause I was under the impression they had the same photo sensor (3008x2000 Sony).  I know the image processing gets updated and all, but that's really confusing as to which one is better.  I've been told newer is better, though, but I'm an engineer at heart and like to know why.

Thank you for responding, everyone.  Its greatly appreciated.


----------



## kellylindseyphotography (Jun 14, 2008)

less talking. more shooting.


----------



## reg (Jun 14, 2008)

kellylindseyphotography said:


> less talking. more shooting.



*is shooting today*

more coffee first...


----------



## JimmyO (Jun 14, 2008)

Mav said:


> If you really want to play with primes and really want to have autofocus support, you can either get a D50 or D70, or wait a few years for Nikon to get their prime lineup updated.  Sigma has a 30mm f/1.4 HSM which is great, and supposedly they have a 50mm f/1.4 HSM coming too.  Every month that goes by, the limitation of not having the old screw drive motor is becoming less and less of an issue.  It's sorta like when the Apple iMac came out and it didn't have a floppy drive built in.  People all screamed bloody murder, but look at where the floppy drive is today.  It's ancient history.  A lot of these newer AF-S lenses give you far more than just AF-S.  They're flat out superior optically and better optimized for digital sensors as well.  The Nikon 70-300VR is a great example.  It's $500 vs $300 or $150 for the older ones, but blows them both out of the water in terms of image quality.



Amen!


----------



## amba (Jun 14, 2008)

The D100 in an antique, forget it.
If you're willing to restrict yourself to AFS only autofocus lenses, go with the D40. If old F-mount autofocus matters, D70 or D50.
I own a D70 and am quite happy with it. I'd consider moving for the newer D40 for its compact size and better LCD, but i'd lose AF with my older 35mm f/2.0 lens, which I like using from time to time.

See D70 reviews and D40 reviews

Cheers


----------

