English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I've been looking online comparisons, its way to close to call, perhaps someone can help me a bit. I got it down to either the Canon XTI or the Nikon D40. Im looking to take sharp pictures with good color quality. Any suggestions?

2007-05-21 10:57:52 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Consumer Electronics Cameras

4 answers

If you can't take great pictures with your XT, you need to improve your technique, upgrade your lens(es), or possibly teach yourself Photoshop or just tweak your camera settings for sharpness and saturation. The XT is a good enough camera for professional photography.
Besides, the Nikon D40 isn't an improvement and the Canon XTi is only marginally better - most noticeably it has a faster auto-focus system. If you want to upgrade the body, you should be looking at the Canon 30D or the Nikon D200. These cameras have a metal body, they shoot 5 frames per second, they have a better auto-focus system, and they offer a few other bells and whistles... but in the right hands they do NOT produce sharper pictures or better colors. They use the same quality sensors and internal image processing software.
What lenses do you use? I ask, because there IS a real difference in image quality between a $200 zoom lens and a $500 or a $1000 zoom lens. If you're using cheap glass and you have some cash to spare, stick with the XT for now and upgrade your lens collection. If you're currently using the 18-55mm kit lens, upgrade to the $450 Tamron 17-50mm or the $510 Canon 17-85mm. If you're using either of those, you can upgrade to the $1050 Canon 17-55mm.

2007-05-22 03:52:13 · answer #1 · answered by OMG, I ♥ PONIES!!1 7 · 1 0

Both cameras are very good, but if you already have a Canon and you like your lenses it would be advantageous to stick with Canon. That way you can purchase just the XTi body and save some $$ for other accessories!

Bob K
http://www.CameraRepairs.com

2007-05-21 11:13:15 · answer #2 · answered by bobk 2 · 0 0

I would agree with Bob K. If you have a couple of Canon lenses, that would be reason enough to stick with Canon, as both cameras are excellent.

If you are looking for a recommendation without regard to any lenses that you may or may not have, I prefer the Nikon D40, mostly because it has a spotmeter and the Canon does not. If you are going to look at Nikon vs. the XTi, you might want to include the D40x in your comparison, as it has 10 MP, which is a match for the XTi.

I'll post two of my stock messages about the D40 and D40x for your interest.

Nikon D40

The Nikon D40 is a great little camera, very easy to use and quite reasonably priced. It will get you in the Nikon family which is a great place to be. If you buy accessories and lenses, you will be able to use everything on any Nikon that you might upgrade to later on.

Check out Nikon's "Picturetown" promotion, where they handed out 200 D40's in Georgetown, SC. http://www.stunningnikon.com/picturetown/

Here are a few reviews, in case you have not read them yet. Be sure to note that they are several pages long and some of the reviews also have some sample images that you can look at.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2007_reviews/nikon_d40.html
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/3756/camera-test-nikon-d40.html
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40/d40-recommendations.htm

I hate to see people slam the camera because it can't autofocus with older Nikon lenses. It is true that there is a "slight problem" with older Nikon lenses not autofocusing on the D40, but if you do not own a bag full of older lenses, it is not going to be a problem. It is barely a problem anyhow. If you check www.nikonusa.com for "AF-S" lenses, which are ALL 100% compatible with the D40, you will find 23 lenses, including 7 "VR" (vibration Reduction) lenses and one true macro lens with "VR". There are another 25-plus lenses in the current catalog that provide all functions except autofocus as well as many (possibly dozens) "out of print" lenses that will work just as well. In addition, although these lens will not autofocus, most of them will still give focus confirmation. From the D40 manual: "If the lens has a maximum aperture of f/5.6 of faster, the viewfinder focus indicator can be used to confirm whether the portion of the subject in the selected focus area is in focus. After positioning the subject in the active focus area, press the shutter release button halfway and rotate the lens focusing ring until the in-focus indicator is displayed."

The D40 only has 3 autofocus zones arranged horizontally at the center, 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock positions. This might be considered a limitation, but realistically, most people will find this perfectly adequate, especially if you are moving up from a point and shoot with only a center zone.

You can get the D40 with the 18-55 kit lens at B&H Photo (available through Yahoo! Shopping or at 1-800-622-4987) for $550 (May 2007) and this is with TWO Lexar 1 GB cards. You can get the same kit with one Lexar Platinum (higher speed) card for $560. Or - get the D40 with 18-135 lens and 1 GB Lexar card for $760.

There's a Nikon D40 on eBay right now with the bidding below $500. See Item No 200110531132...

~~~~~~~~~~

Nikon D40 vs. D40X

There are other slight differences in these cameras that need to be considered. Rather than write it all out, I'll send you to a few sites.

See: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40x.htm

See: http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/3896/camera-test-nikon-d40x.html for a glowing review.

See also: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=nikon_d40%2Cnikon_d40x&show=all

See also:
http://www.nikonians.org/dcforum/DCForumID201/17255.html

As far as the pixel issue, I say, if you have no other basis for making your decision, go for more pixels. If you always plan to compose your pictures perfectly, you don't need a whole lot of pixels. If you want to allow for cropping, which means enlarging only a portion of your image, the more pixels the better.

Imagine taking a scenic view and then noticing that the middle 20% of the photo would make an even better picture. Suppose you take a picture of a whole group of people and Aunt Clara really, really looks great in the picture, but everyone else looks lousy. If you have the pixels to work with, you can still make a decent print of Aunt Clara that she would be happy to have. If you buy an 8-to-10 MP camera and don't want to TAKE large photos, you can always set the camera to a lower file size. You can never go the other direction, though.

Unless the cost is a major issue, buy the camera with more pixels. You will never be sorry that you did, but you might one day be sorry that you didn't.

I have a few photos on Flickr to include in a discussion on how many pixels are enough. Go to my page at http://www.flickr.com/photos/7189769@N04/ Near the top, click on "tags." In the "Jump to" box, enter the word "Pixels" and then press the "GO" button. Some of the pictures are from a 4 MP or even 3 MP camera, showing you what you might expect without any cropping. I think they are quite acceptable. Some of the pictures are from a 10 MP camera (the swan and the pansies), showing the value of having those large images so that you can crop a smaller image out of the original picture and still end up with a satisfactory image.

2007-05-21 11:37:25 · answer #3 · answered by Picture Taker 7 · 0 1

I have to agree with OMG since you hold in your hands one excellent DSLR that should last a lifetime.

2007-05-24 08:03:18 · answer #4 · answered by vuxes 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers