File :-(, x, )
What's the difference between Nikon D40 and D50? Anonymous
I'm considering getting a job this summer and buying a nikon and I'm kind of torn between these two. They actually look nearly the same and ironically the D40 looks much better from what I've read. What makes the D50 better than the D40 for being more expensive?

D40:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Nikon/nikon_d40.asp

D50:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Nikon/nikon_d50.asp
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
D40 can only user certain lenses. Don't limit yourself. Get the D50.
>> Megalomaniac !YvE7MvALtM
>>48083
Huh? How so? If it uses the same lense mounts as every other Nikon Lense how do some just not work? D40 is made of win and an awesome way of starting with DSLRs.
>> Anonymous
>>48084
its not that it cant use the other lenses, it just cant autofocus with them unless they are af-s, which all the newerlenses are pretty much
>> ac
>>48084
It doesn't use "the same lens mount as every other Nikon". There are a bunch of different variations on the Nikon lens mount with varying levels of incompatibility. The D40's quirk is that it doesn't have a focusing motor in the body, which means it can only autofocus with lenses with their own internal focus motor. So non-AF-S lenses will mount, but you have to manually focus them.
>> Anonymous
the d40 is newer so theres probably some slight improvements that arent as obvious as the lens compatibility
also as you can see in the pics, the d50 has a top lcd while the d40 doesnt. d40 is smaller, lighter and has a bigger screen than the d50. theres also the newest d40x, which is the d40 but with 10mp (compared to the d40 and d50s 6). i would get the d40x out of these choices, but you might get disappointed when you see a lens you like but wont be able to auto-focus.
compare them here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=nikon_d40%2Cnikon_d40
x%2Cnikon_d50&show=all
>> Choamsky
I've been a happy owner of a D50 for almost a year now, and I must say it is vastly superior to the d40, d70 and even d80. It does almost everything the other cameras do, is the most configurable and also is an absolute breeze to use.

Go with the d50, you won't regret it.
>> Anonymous
>>48171
> D50 .. vastly superior to the d40, d70 and even d80
O lawd, delusional aren't we?
>> Anonymous
>>48171
Lol minus the electronic shutter the D80 is better than the d50 at everything
Minus the AF screw driven motor the D40 is better than the D50 at everything
>> CatSplat
>>48212

.. aside from the ergo, and the number of focus points, and the battery life, etc. etc.

D80>D50>D40
>> Anonymous
>>48215
Troll or ignorant.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
I don't like how small the D40 is. I have large hands and long fingers, and it's just not very ergonomic for me, nor is the Canon Digital Rebel XTi. Otherwise, the D40 is pretty win. I'd get it and the 18-70, if you've got your heart set on Nikon. If you're open to alternatives, get a Pentax K100D or K110D. They're fucking brilliant.
>> Anonymous
I see there's only one person on this thread who disagrees with the D40 being better and he probably never even tried it.

>>48229
Yeah I'm definetly aiming for a Nikon, I've checked on the lenses also and all that jazz and I'm definetly sticking to a Nikon, this was my only doubt but I believe I'm going for the D40, I only hear good things from it on professional websites with good articles and other rating websites.

But more critiques are more than welcome to help me "confirm" my choice.

As for the lens: I was actually aiming for that one.
>> ac
>>48229
I've got big hands and have never been bothered by the feel of my XTi...
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>48238
Hold it, then hold a Nikon D200 or a Pentax K10D or a Canon 20D and you'll feel a definite difference. I'm not saying you couldn't get used to it, it just isn't as ergonomic as other cameras out there.
>> ac
>>48240
No.

Then I'll wanna buy a Canon 30D. I can't afford that. :-P
>> Anonymous
>>48236

I count three.

The D40 is certainly a great camera, but it does have its drawbacks. It lacks two very useful AF points, it's not as easy to hold if you have medium-to-large hands, it's missing the status LCD. Does it take great pictures? Absolutely. But that missing AF motor means it gets really tough to use great lenses like the fast primes (50mm and 85mm f/1.4), bargain pro glass like the 80-200 f/2.8D, older macro lenses, good third-party lenses, and others. Have fun manual focusing without a decent split=prism.

The D40 is a good beginner SLR and quite good as a lightweight travel body, but I think the D50 does it better.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>48242
signed
>> Falldog !upUGcHlgU2
I have a D50 and after reading about the D40 from Ken Rockwell and then playing around with it for a while at Circuit City I got the feeling that they're pretty similar cameras. Most of differences have been mentioned already.

One thing I question, and feel the D40 might have an advantage in, is the new 18-55 kit lens. It struck me as smaller and lighter than the one that came with my D50 (might be wrong about this), and I'm sure Nikon has made other improvements on an already good kit lens.
>> pixle !YlHXuPBxBQ
(op)

God this is just making me more confused.

Because the only clear disadvantage I see in this is the Auto-focus problem, which I understand that could be a problem in the future.. Because other than that they're both pretty similar and the D40 has a bigger LCD, can reach 3200 ISO with boost, can take unlimited JPEG photos in continuous and weighs less.

Hm...
>> Anonymous
50 is a greater number than 40. duh.

i don't see what the trouble is here.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>48278
If you want my suggestion, get a Pentax K100D. It's a better camera, with a better kit lens, for less money. What moar could you want?
>> pixle !YlHXuPBxBQ
>>48279
...D40 was released after the D50, gtfo.
>> ac
>>48283
Psst. I think that was a humor-joke.
>> pixle !YlHXuPBxBQ
>>48284
I phail at humor.
>> Choamsky
>>48178

No. I just know what I'm talking about. The OP doesn't even know the difference between the d50 and d40, hence he wouldn't notice the difference betwee the d70 and d80. Infact, only an experienced photographer, of which there are none on this site, would be able to notice the differences between each model. The only thing the rest of us would notice is the price, which differs greatly.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>48349
Don't speak so fast, sport. There's plenty of photographers on /p/ that know their stuff. And knowing the difference between cameras does not a professional make. There's a world of difference between the D70 and D80.
>> Choamsky
>>48356

Just because you take lots of photos and have lots of cameras doesn't make you experienced.
>> Anonymous
>>48373take lots of photos
actually, i would call that experience.
>> Anonymous
Get the D40, Thread over

Now focus on lenses, For one ignore the crappy 18-55 and get the 18-70
Other lenses I recommend for the future. (all of these will Autofocus on the D40)
Sigma 10-20mm or Nikon 12-24
Sigma 30mm f1.4
Sigma 70-200 or Nikon 70-200 VR (expensive)
Nikon 18-200 VR (good quality lens considering, and if you don't take much low light pics it can be very multipurpose)
>> Anonymous
>>48392

Declaring "Thread Over" = Insta-fail.
>> Anonymous
>>48428
Claiming insta fail and forgetting to Sage = the real insta-fail
Also going off topic = another insta-fail
Bumping a gear thread = another fail
Thats 3 strikes, now go become an hero.

Back on topic, I have a D50 and its great, The d40 would be nicer to have but I can't give up my 50mm f1.8's AF....
>> Anonymous
>>48390
Just because he took a bunch of pictures doesn't mean they were good.
>> Jay Ann
>>48429
>>48428
>>48392
D2x rules all

Thread Over!
>> Tickshady
>>48392

The D40 dosent have the autofocus drive motor on the camera. Make sure these lenses have the motor built in or else AF wont mean shit.
>> pixle !YlHXuPBxBQ
>>48349
For someone as leet as you it seems as you just failed. Where I'm buying my camera the D40 costs as much as the D50.
>> pixle !YlHXuPBxBQ
>>48441
Yes, that's already been discussed and I already know of the AF issue that only works with AF-I and AF-S lenses as it's been already discussed in this thread if you actually bothered reading.
>> pixle !YlHXuPBxBQ
more opinions welcome.
>> Anonymous
I'm not OP but I'm thinking of buying a D40. The only thing that bothers me is the lack of an anti-shake feature built into the camera a la the Pentax K100D or the Sony A100. Actually I would like to buy the Sony since it feels better in my hands, but it's a bit more expensive and I don't need 10 megapixels. So yeah, how often does the anti-shake come into play? I hear it's only for shots when there's not enough light and the AS allows for lower shutter speeds to get a better picture.
>> Anonymous
>>49138
Anti shake is nice, But VR or IS (vibration reduction or Image Stabilization) Is the same thing (except it functions better the longer the focal length).
so both Nikon and Canon have lenses that fit this purpose. Aka not a big deal.
Also anti shake is pretty limited in itself, Since it just allows slower shutter speeds without motion blur from Camera shake, So moving subjects will still blur.
There is no replacement for wide aperture glass.
>> Anonymous
>>49142
I'm not planning on buying any lenses any time soon (and besides, those VR lenses are quite pricey) and so I'll be doing all of my shooting with the kit lens. So, the lack of an anti-shake feature won't hinder my pictures for the most part, right?

Just want to make sure, since these SLRs are quite the financial commitment.
>> Anonymous
>>49144
Only if you go around taking somewhat low light Landscapes and refuse to pack a Tripod or Brace the camera against something.
Then I would think you might want the antishake, Also the D40's ISO 1600 + 3200 are very useable, I don't hesitate to use ISO 1600 at any time on my D50
>> Anonymous
>>49148
So would shooting a cityscape or bridge or something at night be out of the question? Or will I be able to switch to a higher shutter speed for a decent shot? Sorry if this is a noob question, but I'm a total beginner.
>> Anonymous
>>49144

Nikon is making a big push for affordable VR glass right now. The 55-200VR is $250 and an excellent performer for the price. VR matters most on long lenses, and if you don't mind the rather plastic feel of consumer lenses, the 55-200VR might just be the ticket.
>> thefamilyman
>>There is no replacement for wide aperture glass.
except when you want sharpness
>> Anonymous
>>49157

so what would be a good choice if we DO mind the cheap plastic feel of lenses these days? I swear, even the Leica (!) lens that's kit with the digilux 3/Lumix L1 is affected by that. LEICA.
>> Anonymous
>>49167

Rule of thumb for solid lenses is to go a) older, or b) upmarket. Older Nikkors are great, even the very inexpensive 70-210 f/4-5.6 AF feels quite sturdy. You can pick up one of those for $150 these days. I bought an positively ancient N/AI 85-250 Nikkor (circa 1960) just because it was the best-built lens I'd ever handled. Not a single piece of plastic in the entire lens.

I'm not going to hide my feelings about the Digilux 3, that camera is as much a Leica as the lenses in Sony cellphones are Zeiss. It's pure brandwhoring.
>> Anonymous
>>49258

It may be brandwhoring on the Leica end of the deal, but as the L1 it is an excellent product. Especially at the 1000 bucks the kit is going for on amazon right now. I'm so tempted.

Compare that to the 2500 the digilux kit is going for, considering it's the EXACT SAME CAMERA AND LENS.

As for what you said, yeah, my experience is basically the same, either expensive or old for solid lenses. What is strange though, is that I have an old 80-200 zoom for my canon made by tamron, nice solid tank of a lens, solid metal construction, and compact. Somewhat less in girth than a pringles can and about a third shorter. A comparable zoom on these new lenses is fucking HUGE in relation to it. I can't explain it.
>> ac
>>49264
I'm guessing you're comparing it to really expensive new lenses with an 80-200mm zoom. My 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 Canon zoom is pretty small, but the larger apertures with that zoom range are gonna be much bigger. Also, if this 80-200 you're talking about is an old FD mount, you've got to take into account things like the focus motor and other electronics that have to go into the lens barrel.
>> Anonymous
>>49161
Wider aperture lenses are usually sharper when stopped down than their small aperture counterparts (50mm f1.4 is sharper at f1.8 than the 50mm f1.8 for example)
>> thefamilyman
>>49287
yes, but large appatures wide open still have rather poor boarder sharpness, sometimes absolutely appalling, this deffenatly applies to wide angle lenses.