Nikon D90 vs Canon 40D
Recently, Nikon released D90. This powerful mid range digital camera is priced $999, and will be competing with Canon's popular camera, 40D.Along with D90, Nikon also release a new general purpose kit lens 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 VR
Nikon D90 has some advantages over Canon 40D such as:
- 2 extra megapixels
- High resolution 3" inch screen 920,000 dots vs 230,000 dots
- Ability to record movie at 24fps with sound.
- Face detection on Live View Mode
- ISO range up to 3200, boostable to 6400 (Canon 40D max ISO is 3200)
- 11 points AF compare to 9 points AF.
Canon 40D is still leading in some areas:
- Magnesium Alloy body is stronger and tougher with environmental seal
- 6.5 fps compare to Nikon's 4.5 fps.
Conclusions:
Nikon D90 is a better camera compare to Canon 40D, in many areas especially usable iso up to 3200 (1 stop advantage). Ability to record movie is a very nice addition to slr camera's capability. I will highly recommended this camera especially for reporter or casual family events shooters. For sports shooter and outdoor lovers, 40D might be the better choice because of higher burst speed and better environmental protection.
Labels: digital slr cameras
posted by Enche Tjin at
6:24 AM
20 Comments:
I disagree with the post here. The D90 is a highly glamorised enthusiast camera - equipment usually doesn't matter to a PJ or reporter, and the majority of functions are in excess. Therefore by price and essential features if we were to look at the offerings by Canon and Nikon, the D80, D200, 450D or 40D are more likely candidates.
reporter will benefited by D90 by ISO 6400, high resolution 3" inch lcd for playback and ability to record video clip. It will be nice addition for reporter, especially new media (web)journalists.
450D/XSI is a great budget camera but the max iso is 1600, no top lcd screen and worse body construction and control.
40D's max ISO is 3200 compares to Nikon D90 6400. 40D will benefit sport reporter with the 6.5 fps burst, but 4.5 fps of D90 is adequate for most job.
Maximum ISOs don't tell you how well they handle it. One should reserve judgement until comparison or example photos can be provide.
The LCD screens on the back aren't terribly helpful when you're doing PJ work. You do check it every now and then, but while the action is going on, you rarely have time to stop and review otherwise you might miss an opportunity.
You're not a photojournalist and lack the experience. Your justification shows plainly how. The most important things needed are knowing how to fulfill editorial briefs, having the eye for an image and knowing your equipment well. The camera isn't anywhere remotely as important and you're falling into the trap of over-reliance on the camera. Remember that the photographer is only as good as he/she is, and not how good their camera is.
Well, we all know that it is important to have knowledge of cameras, composition, etc but we're discussing about the camera specs comparison here.
"Nikon D90 is a better camera compare to Canon 40D" - as I've said one should reserve judgement until actually using the camera and making a real-life comparison. It's very dangerous to recommend a camera that you haven't used before and go by just the spec. Specifications alone don't make a good camera. You ought to know better.
The d90 is by body design and feature set, a ENTRY LEVEL DSLR. You are comparing 2 different classes and age groups of cameras. Its like comparing a d200 to the Canon 1ds mk III. 2 megapixels isn't a large increase, and as a matter of fact MEGAPIXELS DON'T MATTER! 2mp is only like a 5% increase in resolution. Reporters dont do video. THEY ARE PHOTO-JOURNALISTS. There are a whole different group of people, called news reporters and camera men that handle the video.
This blog is absolutely Ridiculous. Why? because you have NO EXPERIENCE with any of these cameras, let alone in photojournalism and the pro field. All this blog does, is takes the tech specs off of Nikon and Canon and Pentax (etc, etc) website, and word it differently.
I disagree that the typical photojournalist would benefit from a videotaking function in a DSLR.
As jake has pointed out, they already have specialised professionals for that.
-SnS
I based my comparison mostly on price. It is because my buying philosophy. First is the budget, because based on needs, our budget might not feasible to buy any.
http://www.radiantlite.com/2008/07/buying-new-dslr.html
After setting a budget (max you want to buy), and then we start optimized what we want to buy. In this case, 40D and D90 has similar price points which is approx. $1000.
Sometimes I compare cameras on the same brand like 40D to XSi, and Olympus E-520 with E-510.
I personally use 40D and XSi now, but I have used Pentax dslr and tried Olympus E-500, 510, Nikon D300(friends cameras) before.
I agree that specialized photo journalist or camera man won't benefit from this feature, but I observe many newspaper reporter (which is usually a writer/interviewer too could benefit with this, because they can capture some video clips and photos for their newspaper and also for the web. Journalistic on web is increasingly focus on multimedia development especially the rise of Youtube.
Ed and Jake are complete jerks in their responses. Why so cruel and uneducated? The fact of the matter is that I personally am comparing the 40D, D90, 50D, and D300 to figure out what my needs are -- and yes, I am a blogger, not a "specialized photo-journalist." But blogging has become incredibly important (important enough for Ed, Jake, and Mike to comment at least)! The D90 would satisfy anybody who doesn't make their entire living on photographs (and is very, very similar in quality to the D300 -- if a lot slower). The D90 is giving the D300 a run for its money simply at the level of what a typical Joe could ever want or need (and yes, a 30 second clip of a car accident can make it on the Local News and be spread virally over the internet, far more easily than a single photograph of a car accident can make it into a newspaper).
I personally am not committed to either Nikon or Canon. And while I agree that the D90 is lower rung for ultimate professionals -- it absolutely at the TOP for new photographers, and advanced amateurs, and will definitely be great for News Bloggists too. Advanced professionals should carry at least a 5d Mark 2 or a D700 (minimum).
Contrary to Ed and Jake, 40D and 50D are just another mid-range camera, much the same as the D90. Its all the same class. And im not taking preference here. Same goes for the D300. All of the cameras will be junk in 2 years, which is why you may as well just buy the one that is closest to your price range.
As for features, Enche is absolutely correct. You need clips or short home movies to bring those moments of your grand kids playing alive, then the D90. If you want speed for your kids baseball game or to make sure you get the best shot, then the 50D. But none of these cameras is professional.
As far as im concerned they are all the same range and catagory but with slight differences that appeal to slightly different people. And Enche hit it right on the head.
I hope everyone is still here posting their opinions? I would greatly appreciate your help. I am going to purchase either the d90 or the 40d. BUT, I CAN'T decide which one I want- should want. I know I will be happy with either, but which is better for me? Now, I like the 40d for 3 reasons, (1) it feels rugged/strong, (2) 6.5 fps(!!!), and (3) my pal, the head editor of a well read sports magazine, publishes his pictures with it and they are excellant. Now, they both feel great in my hands. I like everything else on the nikon better- the lens/wide angle, movie (I heard it will do 20mins.), it will connect Nikon lenses from the 70's and earlier... The canon stock lens felt like garbage compared to the nikon stock lens. I will be in gyms, martial art ring boughts, I will be taking pictures when I travel, I will do it all, but I will certainly not be making a living with it. It will be my hobby- an expensive one I can barely afford, but!
The 6.5 fps is huge! the ruggedness is huge! BUT is the nikon that less rugged? is 6.5 v. 4.5 a big difference? I will be photoing someone who is throwing someone else through the air, breaking down martial arts moves and grappling techniques for books. Is there a canon wide angle lens that cost less than 250$? And the video option is great, BUT if Im going to spend 1200$, why not spend the extra $100 and get a iflip- for utube videos. Sorry for the errors in both spllng and grmr, I'm in the middle of class! hmmm, Thanks for every word gentlemen.
Hi veritas, thanks for your comments.
For still life, sport, social events, there are no significant advantage of 4.5 fps compare to 6.5 fps.
But in sport, it might, especially fast action sport. In every second, 40D will deliver aprox. 2 more pics than D90. One of the picture might be the best.
The question whether ruggedness matter is a matter of how you feel the camera. Do you feel solid in your hand? I think that is more important because even 40D claim some weather resistant. But I will not risk 40D in rain. Plus the lenses might not resistant to rain either.
About the movie capability, you can do many creative things that iflip can't do, for example shallow depth of field with big aperture, or wide effect with ultra wide lens, or even fish eye.
For gym, I suggest prime lens 50mm f/1.8 it costs less than $100. You can do portrait or art photography with this lens as well.
Canon has wide kit lens, but like u said, it like garbage(built wise) but it deliver great image. The lens is Canon EF-S 18-55 IS. It cost around $100-150.
High quality Canon wide lens for crop sensor include 17-55mm IS USM and ultra wide 10-20mm USM
I think theres a lot of Canon fans here, and I believe that we should analyze this from an impartial point of view, I am an Olympus user, and I must say that Nikon got it right this time, and the D90 is not only better than the 40D, but also a very good reason to change brands.
, It's totaly mistake Nikon D90 better than canon 40 , overall Definitely canon 40D is the better camera , why because plastic body Nikon D90 overrated/overpriced camera compare to canon 40D, 40D is the best camera for the price, made in japan, metal body , live histogram, faster 6.5fps & many more , D90 hv advantage on Lcd, rubbish video capture, high iso to 6400 doesn't mean usable or better ????, D300 better camera than 40D but not completely , made in Thailand and the price more than 1.5X, so I still say 40D is the best camera for the price.
hello,
i'm a canon user, i had a 450d and switched to 40d. reason: 450d it feels cheap compared to 40d although is much more easy to use. both cameras are great (with the 450d u'll get great pictures with no effort). i like my 40d but recently i played with a friends d90 and it feels in many ways better then canon. if it wasn't for my canon L lenses that i have i would switch in a second. in real life comparison the pics from the d90 (18-105mm kit lens) are crispier and sharper than than canon 40d and 450d with L lenses (despite the fact that dpreview says that 450d performs better than d90). in my opinion u should try it before buying it.
Well whatever is the problem, I have both camera's and think both have their advantages. D90 strong points are the:
- video (control of DOF)
- iso6400 which has no banding unlike the 40D at iso 3200
- kit lens very sharp
- auto iso control from 200-6400
- as with the new batch of nikon's, they are the are the hi iso kings
- i prefer the hi iso peformance of the D90 800-6400
As for 40D:
- fast 6.5 FPS
- Price
- Canon Colours
- Tough
- 14bit AD compard to D90's 12bit AD
- More dynamic range than the D90, although Fuji S5 Pro is stil the king.
- I prefer the low iso performance of my 40D 100-1600
I am surprised at the emotional content of the comments. Apparently, someone struck a nerve.
To keep in the same emotional trend, Ed must be smoking some fine herb with he suggests that a better alternative to the D90 might be a D80 or D200. The D90 is a significant upgrade to the D80 and I know because I own both. The D200 is more durable but is also heavier, has terrible battery life and small screen. The D200 WAS a great camera 2 years ago but as someone already commented earlier that amount of time is an eternity for this market segment.
If you have $900 to spend the D90 is a great camera with has the bonus of being able to shoot short video segments.
I too have the D90. I am a new Nikon owner formally a Canon guy. I typically shoot family and now sports events that my kids participate in. I am in no way a great photographer but, sometimes I have withdrawls and feel like maybe I should have bought the 40D. The Nikon D90 is good. The only reason I think that I should have bought the Canon is because of the fps. Other than that, I think the Nikon has much more to offer to a beginner like me. Most notable is the Digitutor that attemps to show me how to use my camera.
Who is the winner in terms of image quality: Canon 40D vs Nikon D90
in following areas.
1. Picture Smoothness
2. Noise Performance above ISO 800
3. Sharpness
4. Default JPEG Processing Quality
1. 40D, 14 bit vs 12 bit
2. D90 is better in noise handling
3. Depend on lens, kit lens usually crappy while high quality lens are awesome.
4. Depend on taste, and can be customizable (sharpness, saturation etc).
I agree that Enche is completely off the mark with his comparison. Additionally, he may want to take into consideration Canon's autofocus system, which is the main reason photojournalists and others switched to EOS from Nikon over the last 20 years or so.
Enche, Nikon has very few alternatives to Canon's 20, 28, 50, 85, 100 and other USM lenses, or even any of Canon's lenses with AF built in to them. Nikon has only recently begun to introduce a USM type system into its AF lenses, way behind Canon.
That is why I switched to Canon. Also, if I was a serious Nikon shooter, I would choose the D200 over the D90. It is available almost new for about 500 dollars now, and can make use of AIS lenses. The D90 camera is crippled and must use AF lenses only. Even a Canon can use old Nikon lenses and maintain metering.
Nikon is a company that made many many bad choices over the years, and is only now beginning to catch up with Canon.
Post a Comment
<< Home