# What's a good upgrade from the Nikon D40X?



## OfMikeandMen (Mar 30, 2013)

I realize that, generally, it is better to upgrade a lens prior to upgrading camera's, but I bought my D40X when I knew very little about photography. I don't want to buy any lenses for my D40X and then not have them compatible with my next camera. I plan on upgrading within the next year, and am curious what the best upgrade would be. I only have the kit lens, so my upgrade doesn't have to strictly be a DX model. I just want to make sure I get the most out of my money. The photography I am most interested in is wedding and portrait photography, and I plan on doing some travel/landscape photography... but any money I make will be in wedding and portrait photography. I've been looking at the D600, but after doing a little bit of research, I don't think I need a full frame camera at this time, but something around that price range or lower would be great. I just want to make my next upgrade count. Thanks for any input.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 30, 2013)

What would be a good upgrade from the D40X?

Anything. 


All joking aside. If you're doing Wedding Photography... the D600 would be an excellent choice... After all, it is marketing directly to Wedding Photographers. 

Also, all of your DX lenses that you purchased for your D40X will work on any other Nikon dSLR as well... even Full Frame. Full Frame Nikon's offer a mode to use DX lenses.


----------



## OfMikeandMen (Mar 30, 2013)

Would the D600 be a better choice over the 7100?


----------



## jake337 (Mar 30, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> What would be a good upgrade from the D40X?
> 
> Anything.
> 
> ...




If the OP is serious about starting a wedding photography business I would think 2 D600s would be a good place to start.


----------



## DarkShadow (Mar 30, 2013)

I am not so sure about that after looking at this review. Nikon D7100 vs D600


----------



## SCraig (Mar 30, 2013)

OfMikeandMen said:


> Would the D600 be a better choice over the 7100?



Yes, it would be.  If you are seriously planning on shooting portraits and weddings then FX is the way to go.  You don't need the resolution of a 24mp DX sensor, you need the clarity of an FX sensor.


----------



## Benco (Mar 30, 2013)

If the D600 isn't for you then the D7100 is a reasonable option. It's brand spanky and if it's an improvement over the D7000 then it'll be an excellent camera.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 30, 2013)

OfMikeandMen said:


> Would the D600 be a better choice over the 7100?



That depends on the your needs.

However, if you're basis for purchase is hardware capability, then the D600 is your winner....

I,personally would go for the D7100. Mainly because the capability difference isn't going to be noticed in your field of interest (i also shoot weddings.). However, ive never drooled over full frame either. On the same note, if i went full frame, i'd probably never go back.

it;s going to boil down to your specific needs. The d7100 is a very capable camera, for a fraction of the price of the d600.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 30, 2013)

OfMikeandMen said:


> Would the D600 be a better choice over the 7100?



Maybe NOT, actually...the two are contemporaries...you might find that you prefer the 1.5x sensor of the new D7100. it also has very good High-ISO performance--far better than earlier APS-C cameras had.


----------



## tevo (Mar 30, 2013)

If you are going to get a D7100 why not get a D7000 for significantly cheaper... the D7000 is an extremely capable camera. With that aside, I would go for the D600 (consider that I am one of those with the extreme full frame itch).


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 30, 2013)

tevo said:


> If you are going to get a D7100 why not get a D7000 for significantly cheaper... the D7000 is an extremely capable camera. With that aside, I would go for the D600 (consider that I am one of those with the extreme full frame itch).



That answer is simple... it's only a couple of hundred bucks more than the D7000 (in other words, it's worth the extra push for the newer model) and it's a better camera. It would be different if the price difference was $500 to $1000 in difference between the two models... but it's literally about a $200 difference. Well worth the extra investment to go ahead and drop on a D7100.


----------



## Danuser (Apr 1, 2013)

OfMikeandMen said:


> I realize that, generally, it is better to upgrade a lens prior to upgrading camera's, but I bought my D40X when I knew very little about photography. I don't want to buy any lenses for my D40X and then not have them compatible with my next camera. I plan on upgrading within the next year, and am curious what the best upgrade would be.



I owned a D40X as well and began thinking about upgrading when the camera starting experiencing some issues. My intent was to wait and see what the 7100 turned out to be, but the great deals on the D600 over the holidays moved me to upgrade. I've been very happy with the camera; no oil spot issues so far (knock on wood) and the functionality and feel of the D600 is just awesome.

To be honest, it's more camera than I probably need (I'm a hobbyist and am still learning), but I don't regret the purchase one bit. This camera is going to do everything I need for many years to come.

Besides the kit lens, the only DX glass I had was the 55-300 zoom. I will upgrade to the FX version of the lens, though I'm not in a huge rush. Thanks to the D600's crop mode, I can use the DX lens and get essentially the same resolution and crop of shots as I got on the D40X but with the D600's higher overall quality. And honestly, I'm having more fun with prime lenses these days, and would rather put my money toward a macro lens.

I'm sure I'd also have been pleased with the D7100, but after I got over the initial feeling of intimidation, going full frame has been a fun adventure.


----------



## cgw (Apr 1, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> tevo said:
> 
> 
> > If you are going to get a D7100 why not get a D7000 for significantly cheaper... the D7000 is an extremely capable camera. With that aside, I would go for the D600 (consider that I am one of those with the extreme full frame itch).
> ...



For the $, the 7000 is killer and certainly won't be getting pricier. Not sure about the price spread. Seems to be more like $300+, even more in Canada where the D7000 is just shy of $800. At those prices, I'm not sure the D7100 is worth 50% more. At any rate, D7100 reviews are still coming in, so I'd wait, especially given Nikon's QC problems on the D600.


----------



## orb9220 (Apr 1, 2013)

Don't forget like many due is budget in the extras. Like going Fx usually means upgrading glass. 
Doing weddings now we are talking adding flashes and some primes. As well as fast f2.8 zooms.

For a fixed budget for me would mean a D7000 ++ quality glass + flash over a D7100 body only with lesser quality glass I might depend on. 
.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 1, 2013)

D800, the obvious choice for upgrade.  Is this thread a trick question, anyway


----------



## DCerezo (Apr 1, 2013)

Coolpix P7700 is a good upgrade from the D40X


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 1, 2013)

DCerezo said:


> Coolpix P7700 is a good upgrade from the D40X



^^^yeah, that too


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Apr 1, 2013)

I don't know where this misconception is coming from that you can't use FX lenses on a DX camera. Yes, you can use FX glass on a DX camera. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, won't using FX lenses on a DX camera get rid of some of that blurring/unsharpening effect near the edge of the frame?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 1, 2013)

Derrel said:


> OfMikeandMen said:
> 
> 
> > Would the D600 be a better choice over the 7100?
> ...



And give up all that D600 dynamic range mad pow-ah!?


----------



## djacobox372 (Apr 2, 2013)

D600 or used d700, full frame is worth it.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 2, 2013)

Having an FX camera with only DX lenses is really a huge waste of money.

Crop mode on a d600 is going to get you, what? 12mp?

Now you could say "buy the d600 now and get the glass later!" But good glass is nearly a lifetime investment whereas bodies come and go in relatively short order.  You'd be better off buying a lower tier cam like a d7000 and using the leftover to invest in your first FX lens.  Then when you have a couple of those or better, start thinking about your first FX body.

It's a bummer to have to do it- trust me I put off an FX body by almost two years because of it, but I'm glad I did.


----------



## sandollars (Apr 2, 2013)

I had a D40 and loved it for years. When the D7000 came out, I gave my D40 to my son and bought it.  What an excellent camera.  I could have died happy until I got my hands on my daughter's 5D MK ii and discovered the full frame difference in low lights.  It was over.  I gave my D7000 to my son who gave his D40 to my youngest daughter and $7,000.00 later in lenses and a FX body. I am set....  For now...  

One thing to take into consideration, well at least for me.  Bodies will come and go.  Lenses you buy only once.  Buy the best lenses you can afford even if you decide to stay with a DX camera....  For now..  If you get serious, I bet you WILL move to the dark side and buy a full frame.  When you do, you will already have some fast lenses.  JMHO. But WTH do I know.....


----------



## JDFlood (Apr 3, 2013)

If your serious about photography, and are planning to be the primary wedding photographer, or think you are serious about photography long termed, you want to go FX as soon as possible.. Don't invest in DX lenses. Sure you can use DX lenses on a FX body by handicapping the camera big time. A contemporary FX will outperform a contemporary DX... JD


----------



## jwbryson1 (Apr 3, 2013)

iPhone 4.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 3, 2013)

jwbryson1 said:


> iPhone 4.




I had suspected this thread is going places


----------

