Nikon d40 vs d40x what to buy more mp's?

Question

Information I have been researching states.The NikonD40 is super lightweight, works great. The battery lasts forever and it's fast and easy to use and carry. Just get one, and use the great 18-55mm lens that comes with it. I make great 12x18" (30 x 50 cm) prints from it all day long.This camera is a 6.1 mp's.
The next thing I read was to get a great 10x8" I need at least 7.2 mp's. So what is the deal withthe mp's? Thanks Martha

Answer 1

Hello Martha.

From the way your question is stated it appears you own the D40. If you're happy with it why concern yourself with the D40x?

If I'm reading your question wrong and you want to compare the D40 to the D40x, there is a comparison in the Oct. 2007 issue of Shutterbug Magazine. You can read it at shutterbug.com. Two changes in the D40x are 10.1mp and a lower ISO - 100 instead of 200.

Answer 2

Dr. Sam's pretty much said it all. The D40X is definitely an upgrade over the excellent D40. The 6.1mp resolution of the D40 will yield very impressive images, if you don't crop or enlarge a great deal. For that point, the D40X is your choice.

But the price difference can get you a very nice Nikon SB dedicated flash or help get your next lens into your camera bag. A Nikon 55-200mm or 55-200mm VR is a great way to expand your photographic horizons. That indicates a D40 would be a better selection.

Currently I shoot with 6.1mp Nikons and have spent my extra funds on lens, instead of upgraded bodies. I can assure you, the time will come, but for now, I'm satisfied with my D70 and D50 cameras.

If your budget can handle it, get the D40x with extra lens or flash. They really make a difference. If the budget it tighter, I'd suggest getting the D40 with the extras.

Either way, you'll have invested in an excellent system.

By the way, read these articles about megapixels.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/21pogues-posts-2/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/technology/08pogue.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

I hope this is helpful.

p.s. These were shot on a 6.1 megapixel Nikons.
http://www.spmsportspage.com/images/college/football/2007/California-45-Tennessee-31-09-01-2007/DSC_0065_GHYoung.html
http://www.spmsportspage.com/images/college/football/2007/California-42-Louisiana-Tech-12-09-15-2007/DSC_8135_GHYoung.html

Answer 3

My stock answer that applies to you..........

If you always plan and compose your pictures perfectly, you don't need a whole lot of pixels. These days, I'd say that 5 MP or even 4 MP is fine for the average snapshooter and this can be obtained without unreasonable expense. 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/samfeinstein/tags/pixels/ 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. There is one VGA picture, just to show what you could expect from 640 x 480 pixels - not much.

Ken Rockwell has an interesting article on pixels and the pixel wars: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

Having said all that, though, pixels are not the only measure of image quality. The sensor size is important as well as the image processing software included in the camera. (See http://www.flickr.com/photos/7189769@N04/476181751/
You need to read reviews if you want a critical understanding of image quality for particular cameras. Try http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ for more information on the cameras you are considering. Pixels are not the decision maker, but they are the tie breaker, so go for the higher pixel count.

You can go there and click on "Buying Guide" and then "Features Search" to specify how many pixels you want to look at.

You can also go to http://www.steves-digicams.com/default.htm and click on "Our reviews," where you will find catagories of cameras arranged by pixel count.

Answer 4

To get great 8 x 10" prints, you don't really need more than 3 megapixels from a digital SLR. At 8 x 10", you won't be able to tell the difference between a 6mp SLR camera image and 10mp SLR camera image.

However, the 10mp image does give you more latitude for cropping.

Note also that small point and shoot cameras don't do as well as SLRs, so more megapixels in a point and shoot make a bigger difference for them.

As for what you're reading, I suspect that it comes from people who like to play with math instead of working with real images. They will play mathematical tricks, like saying you need 300 dots per inch to get a great photo, which is absolutely not true. Notice that 8" x 300dpi = 2400 and 10" x 300dpi = 3000. Now, notice that 2400x3000=7,200,000 or 7.2 megapixels.

Here's why this is misleading: printer resolution is different from sensor resolution. Also, the 300 dpi figure is almost arbitrary. Finally, such equations don't take into account the interpolation when moving from a digital file to a printed image. All printer drivers interpolate the image and printers have a native resolution, for which printing settings must be adjusted. In practical terms, ignore the math and use the evidence of your eyes--do the 8 x 10" prints from your 6 megapixel camera really look as horrible as that misleading math says they should?

The point: believe your eyes, not a bunch of bogus numbers.

Answer 5

I would go with the 40x