Nikon D90 vs Canon 40D

by Enche Tjin on August 1, 2008

nikon-d90Recently, 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″ LCD 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, boost able to 6400 (Canon 40D max ISO is 3200)
  • 11 points AF compare to 9 points AF
  • Creative Lighting System – Wireless Trigger
  • Better kit lens

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.

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.

Comments (imported from old blog platform)

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.

Enche Tjin
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.

Enche Tjin
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.

Jake O’Connell
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.

Enche Tjin
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.

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.

Mr. President
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.

Enche Tjin
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.

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.

Darshan Blogger
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 Claudius
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.

Ima Jamoke
I’ll second Ed and Jake…anyone can pull specs from a data sheet and make a haphazard analysis. The “photography” tag in this blog’s title is misleading since there are no experts reporting here, except for possibly a few of the posts. If you are interested in “professional reviews”, please reference …for example, for Nikon D90 reviews see


I am sorry guys and girls, Canon just makes a better canera.

Canon sucks hard in making SEMI_PRO Cameras. Canon only make better PRIME lense than Nikon. And Nikon sucks hard in making their ENTRY LEVEL Body ( D40/x/D 60 Only ). If Possible , I Would use my Nikon Body and buy any F1.2 Canon Lense.

In term of budge you will see how impossible they can be compared to each others. D 90 Versus 450 D ??? ( 1k versus 0.7 k) . D 300 versus Canon 40 D ( 1.7k versus 1k) ??? 50 D even cant be compared with D 300 unless u r canonian.

Different companies have their own Plans.

Now what? Canon is realy does play Nikon, also, they re putting their fans into another dilemma ….Whether pick the New 500D ( 12800 iso, movies…) or stick with the 50D ( better build, speed..)

Nikon, makes a joke in rising the Price of DSLR line too high…a evidence for this is the D3x. Would you Pick D3x body only over 5d mark 2 or sony alpha 900 plus better superior lenses???

I might find my way out and look for a rangfider Camera like Voigtlander /Epson becasue the dslr companies have sicken me .

Enche Tjin
Canon 50D and 500D is geared towards different segment, beginner vs advanced.

check the comparison here

About D3X, They probably set the price too high, or maybe they already research that high-end pro photographers will buy that kind of camera at any cost.

I would also have to agree with Ed here. The 40D and the D90 handle noise in completely different ways with completely different philosophies in mind.

Nikon tries to get rid of noise at the cost of detail while Canon attempts to preserve detail at the cost of increased noise. To decide who is better at handling noise would be a matter of belief here.

Also, there is no way that you could compare the 40D and D90 simply because they are geared towards different audiences. The 40D is a semi-pro body that can take more abuse and use than the D90 with it magnesium frame. The D90 is geared towards consumers that would be attracted to cool sounding features such as video.

For a serious photographer, the shooter friendly features of the 40D clearly make it the better choice than the D90. It’s about usability not specs. Then again if this were a 40D v. D300, it would be a different story entirely.

Related Post:

{ 22 comments… read them below or add one }

Jay July 31, 2009 at 10:28 am

I think both cameras are good, it’s up to the user which one they feel more comfortable with. I have tested both and I don’t think photo-results wise I have any complains between any of them.

Nikon gives you 2 more MPs vs Canon, while canon has 6.5 FPS I supposed to Nikon’s 4.5. I personally felt that the image stabilization of Canon (28-135) was much more effective than of Nikon (18-105). Nikon takes video but I am not sure if that was really convenient to me, cause its takes so much space in your memory card. Nikon used SD card which are cheaper than Canon’s Compact Flash cards. However compact flash cards are supposedly more stable and safer than SD cards. Nikon gives 900K 3″ LCD Vs Canon’s 230K 3″ LCD; to me not a great difference but 900K its better. Canon has 3 user settings that you can save as your requirement; I don’t think Nikon has it. Nikon has 11 point focus Vs Canon’s 9 point focus this wasn’t a great deal to me; in fact I liked Canon’s focusing better and faster.

One thing that knocked me off from Nikon is that, I tested almost 8-9 Nikon Cameras and 4-5 Canon Cameras (Nikon d90, d60, d5000, d80 & Canon XS, XSI, T1I, 40D); in my tests 90% of the Nikon Cameras had Bad Pixel/Hot Pixel issue vs NONE of the Canons had this issue (This is when the weather sealed body of Canon is appreciated). To me this was a serious issue; I don’t like to spend time on correcting all those Bad pixels in my photos. Now, both of these camera do not have “Pixel Remapping Function” built in their camera like other Brands (Pentax, Olympus, Sony- This function works in these cameras I have tested), which means if you get bad pixel in your photos you will have to send your camera for repair, which is painful and if you are out of warranty its expensive too.

I personally like Nikon and Canon’s photo results & range of Lenses, which is why i prefer them even though they didn’t have Pixel Mapping Function. However it’s a time that these companies think about employing such function. (It saves lot of time, energy, Environmental Waste and money)

For me if you are a beginner (like me) i would suggest to go for a camera which is least expensive this way by the time you will learn how to do good photography, other pro models will become cheaper for you.

Conclusion; if money do not bother you go for Nikon D90 cause it has lot more small goodies to offer on the pretty much same price as Canon 40D. However if you see Bad Pixels in your camera do not hesitate to contact Nikon and if your camera is within the return policy period, go and get it exchanged. Personally both are nice camera, both take good pictures, both have their positive and negatives; it is the user who have to decide which one they want to go with, in a longer run.

i hope this will help.

Jay July 31, 2009 at 10:56 am

One thing i forgot to tell you guys is; any cameras you buy make sure that you do the Camera Test with its Lens Cap on. This will give you Black photo which is really easy to track your Hot Pixels. Most of the time these dots are so small that you can only see them on Computer Screen when you zoom or enlarge the image.
Good Luck.

admin July 31, 2009 at 1:53 pm

Thanks Jay, that is an awesome comments.

Fuzz August 2, 2009 at 9:57 am

Hi All, i have read the post from the start and there is a lot a heat being generated between the manufactures so i thought i would shed some light on some real life experiences. I own a 40D and several L series lenses, however i always travel with my stock EFS lens mounted to the body to keep the weight down. The other lenses including my $140 50mm 1.8 always come for the ride in my back pack.

I will compare the 40D with my friends D90 and just a word i always shoot in manual while my buddy was shooting in Auto, he just hasnt learnt yet but he will get there with some guidance.

Outdoor Shooting.

I set the 40D to iso 100, the d90 shot anywhere from 260 – 400. we shot general stuff like people, landscape and waterfalls. The D90 showed beautiful pictures in the LCD compared to my 40d, the images on the d90 appeared to be a lot sharper than those on my the Canon, my friend was cheering however i remained cool as i new the real test was when we downloaded these inages to the computer. I was a little more creative as i controlled the shutter and aperature and the results will be summarised at the end.

Indoor Shoot, friends wedding.

This was always going to be a good test as the nikon had a huge ISO range compared to my canon as i purposely limited it 400 with bounce flash. The nikon was used with and without flash and compensating with ISO settings. The down side on the night with the nikon is the SB800(i think or the 900) was overheating when went into burst after some time and became inoperable, we quickly canned the flash and used a high iso. In turn swithched to 800 and used my f1.8 prime.

Night shooting in -8 to -10 deg Cel temperatures

This was going to be my favourite test as we photographed the stars. Our fingers where going to freeze of in between setting changes and BULB shooting. I was so impressed with the 40D as it just kept going, the chill killed battery life but spares fixed that problem. The D90 ran into general operational problems, not responding, almost like locking up but not quite. i used manual settings for both these cameras with almost identical accesories.I had set an external timer on the canon to capture 2 mins with noise reduction switched on.

Sports Photography ( ah well kids soccer game anyway )

I had no choice but to slap on my 100-400 is L lens with absolutely no remorse or regret. Fast shutter set to 100, IS 1, low ISO and burst switched on while shooiting in RAW. This was a cracker day with perfect colour in the sky as the clouds kept the tones beautiful. The nikon only had the VR 50 – something zoom (dont remember maybe 200 or so, but you nikon folk would know) o i thought this would be an biased test, you know what i didnt care today. It was just a nice day.

Last test on a boat photographing wildlfe ( seals + penguins )

I swapped this time to my stock EFS S lens and my buddy kept his 50 – 200 or so lens on. The main difference here is we both shot in burst at iso 400 in Shutter priority varying it as we zoomed in. The image stabilzer was a treat on this boat and i was able to record an almost time lapse effect as the seals dived in to the water of the rock, those extra frames definately painted a better picture as i was able to capture the STORY better, in some cases the D90 missed the in between action or it was to far spaced out.

Back to the computer and the results.

I can certainly say that given the types of sessions, the level of experience and the gear used but most importantly the type of photography i like to take that i have absolutely no regrets in choosing the 40D. The control i had with the dilas and buttions made sence to me with the Canon, i couldnt work well with the Nikon and i do not hold that against the D90, its just that i am not familiar with the layout.
The photos of the outdoor shoot on the computer monitor showed subtle differences between the two makes and was to hard pick. The winner on the day perhaps was the Canon due to the composition and control that i had over my technology, the nikon seemed to shoot the same story again and again which is understandable given the mode that used to shoot. The real difference was the vibrance in colour, the detail in the landscapes, while i found the Nikon took really nice photos of neutral colours especially skin. The portarits where nice and required little post production while the reverse was true for the lanscapes. The indoor shoot was a much of a muchness. I managed to get nice even tones with the flash, with no flash burns or over exposing. Noise control was really good on the nikon in its high ISO range and skin tones more preferred on the d90. The downside on some photos with this nikon was the flash burns and overexposed areas when the external flash was used. This can be contributed to many factors so lets not start on this, overall a tie would be called FOR THIS TEST AND LOCATION.
The night shhot in extreme conditions im sorry to say Niokn fans the D90 just didnt have the goods in comparison. The 40d was a tireless machine that never skipped a beat and just took great photo after great photo. The elements had their own ideas with the overall performance of the Nikon. Keep in mind that the images that where captured an downloaded with the Nikon where equivalent to the 40D, not much to say here as there was no colour in the sky tonight.

The Sports photography with the 40D and the gear was brilliant, i would of loved to match the D90 with similar glass but could not. The d90 presented some really nice images with the its gear. The 40D gave me some of the best photos ive taken in a long time, the 100 – 400L captured the sharpest photos in burst, the colour absolutely awesome and the action shots detailed.

The boat trip was also good and the D90 returned lovely sharp close range images but on the zoom with the movement while compensating with the shutter left less to be desired. The Canon performed well in all aspects. Which camera here, i think a tie again given the gear.

So what do i think overall. If you just take snapshots in Auto mode then forget the SLR and buy a compact. Thses do a fine job but as soon as you get creative, focus on composition, frame and light the scene then the D90 and the 40D are good choices ( I say good because i would still love at minimum a semi pro slr). The D90 had really pleasing results on skin tones with and without the flash and as expected performed well in most situations. The average user must first understand photography before they dwell in the realm of the menu the D90 has and then the menu of the flash. There are so many bells and whistles to confuse even the most seasoned shooter.

This camera is recomonded for any first time SLR user and can expect great results in auto mde, once you venture of into the creative zone then you can expect a much nicer result. The LCD display on the Nikon does return a much nicer image compared to the Canon and my advice for the Canon users is to use the display as a guide for assesing the photo for exposure and compostion etc and definately learn to understand the histogram. in my opinion that is all you require the LCD for, would i protest if Canon included a higher res display, Hell No.

Anyway i dont want to bore you to much, so here it is. If i had to choose again. The camera I would buy for my style of shooting, well thats a no brainer for me, the 40D if i had my time again, but now there is the 50d and of couse the 5d MkII.

I was so impressed with the general performance of my camera gear, the robustness in comparison, the essential features (i have not commented on resolution, really it was insignaficant this time around) where really practical, yes it would be nice to be able to take video but that really wasnt what i was comparing. As you can imagine there could be so many different outcomes with these types of tests, choose your camera wisely with your head and not your heart. There are a stack of resourses to brain wash you either way so heres what i did. I read every possible forum, went into a a dozen camera shops, spoke to 20 odd sales people and then determined what i wanted from a camera.

I made my choice so now its up to you, good luck.

admin August 2, 2009 at 4:49 pm

Thanks for the very informative comment

Mark Boyle August 8, 2009 at 1:10 pm

For you who think they are photojournalists and know what reporters do and don’t require, ALL photojournalists today are required to have a video function with them, regardless of the medium. It’s called the internet. Video capabilities need to be accessible all of the time for journalists. Either you carry an HD Flip camera AND a DSLR or you have both in one with the Nikon.

Experience September 16, 2009 at 12:10 am

I bought the D90 and used it for a couple of weeks and I didn’t like as well as the canon xti that I was experienced with so I took it back and bought 40D and I like it much better! My opinion is that it’s about what are you more comfortable with. I personally like the feel of the 40D and also like the placements of the button features. Sure the D90 has video but what 20mins maximum?? Not worth it. I’m really happy with my 40D and my images quality is excellent! The 6.5 fps works great and comes in handy for sporting shoots!

Just remember that what ever feels good to you then get buy it, you can try it out, like I did, then return or exchange it so that you can experience it for yourself!

Good luck!

V!PER September 25, 2009 at 7:25 am

I am amaze why people even argue because of these two brands.

If you ask me, which one is the best. My answer is indefinite. Why? Because gears are just like cars. They add features to their predecessor and/or each other. Making your 2009 new release with 720/1080HD, 12.3Mp/15Mp, ISO 6400, magnesium alloy, 4.5fps/6fps, Family/journalist/reporter type camera a junk in a few more years.

These companies are playing with you, adding a little bit and taking off a little bit. But they do not intend to give you everything in one perfect camera.

I am willing to spend a good amount if they do give me a DSLR that has everything and will not depreciate/resale value still high.

Im a Nikon user, but i do not intend to influence anyone to use my brand because each and everyone has their own opinon and needs.

The admin showed us the advantages of each camera.Two cameras has their own great features and it helps you see which one fit your needs.

PhotoMom September 28, 2009 at 12:15 pm

I’ve used both and stuck with 40D. Love Nikon lenses, but 40D seems to perform better at most ISOs.

Could be few pixels on APS-C sensor?

Video was okay, but not great.

40D price is down now, and I still think it outshoots the 50D – again for noise.

Ryan September 30, 2009 at 1:03 pm

Choose Nikon, if you have a friend who shoots with it or if you have a number of lenses for it.
Choose Canon, *same reason*

friend October 11, 2009 at 1:52 am

To be honest. It does not matter whether you buy a nikon camera or a canon camera. What is important is that you will not regret it. At the end of the day, cameras are just tools. It is the hands behind these tools that make it a beast. I can give you the best camera but if you do not have any skill, then the pictures will and forever look terrible. So both brands are excellent. They can really produce outstanding pictures but it is still up to you whether those pictures look terrific or not.

asan dolah October 26, 2009 at 10:23 pm

40d is a better camera. Great combo with 17-55 F2.8 IS USM and 70-200 F4 IS USM. Great image quality you’ll get. Nikon can only match 40d with D300.

chris November 24, 2009 at 1:17 am

Thanks for all these threads. I have a 40D since May and had many problems with it. Didn’t seem to be able to take a clear group photo.
Often it was mis-focus. Brought the lens back to Canon to calibrate. Much better now, but lost confidence in the camera. Selling it tomorrow and thinking of swapping to a D90 or EOS 7D,

My feelings.. I had expected the DSLR to perform like my old film camera EOS 88. where the photos were simply amazing.. well it didn’t

Oh ya, one major comment about 40D, the screen resolution isn’t that great, After each shot , when I check and zoom in, they are look kinds blur. But when you download in the PC, the photos look decent.


Ryan January 23, 2010 at 3:37 pm

This guy is actually getting a LOT of page views because of our comments! The D90 just has fancy extras that a serious photographer, I assume, won’t really need in the long run.

PS The screen behind the camera is dead unreliable. When you see a blurry image on the screen, DON’T DELETE IT YET. Check it in a big screen or on your computer first ;)

AnHund February 26, 2010 at 11:48 am

Camera brand, resolution, technical features and expenses lenses won’t make you a better photographer, so just choose the camera you like best :-)

Svrider March 5, 2010 at 8:47 pm

AnHund, Well Said…… quit with all the spec talk. What makes a great photo is largely the photographer’s skill and to a much lesser extent the camera’s specifications. Don’t tell me there weren’t any great photos back in the film SLR days before digital technology took over. If you don’t get your composition right or if you don’t know how to draw someone’s attention, you photo will SUCK! Read Ken Rockwell’s blog.

Get a grip, everyone!

Anonymous June 1, 2010 at 12:30 pm

Although this article is just a simple rehashing of tech specs, I do feel that the Nikon D90 is being given an unfair rep here.
Just because it is geared towards consumers doesn’t mean it can’t take professional level shots.
When used properly, the 40D and D90 will be able to yield identical results.
The higher FPS is only necessary for sports photography and such, otherwise people usually shoot one frame at a time.
The ISO control on the D90 is excellent, and being able to shoot at such high ISOs with less noise is really a huge benefit.
As with the comment who said that they could only match the 40D with the D300, the D300 and D90 give identical quality pictures. The D300 just has more autofocus points, and a better body + higher FPS. They still take the same quality photos.

Dickie June 23, 2010 at 6:57 am

after long deliberation i went with the 40D, far superior product, in regards to construction and output, if i want a video camera i will buy a video camera, 40D has live view, i never use it so dont care that you have to flip the mirror to focus, i want a camera that will do what i want it to do when i want it, and thats to take photos, the 40D does this extremely well?
we could debate all day which camera is best but it basically all comes down to individual needs

Pas August 11, 2010 at 2:56 am

If you look at real reviews and test results that include the D90, you’ll quickly notice that, because of it’s CMOS sensor, it’s actually superior in picture quality than all other non-professional Nikon models. It even surpasses the D300 (see Ken Rockwell’s reviews). Sure the D300 has more bells and whistles because it was deemed to ba a pro model (entry level) but if you look at side by side comparisons, it’s clear which has the best picture quality – and isn’t THAT what’s the most important in the long run?

The rest seem to me like the standard basic features you’d expect for it’s category and price point.

canikon August 12, 2010 at 2:01 am

Sony is still the best :)

Sziga August 15, 2010 at 4:11 pm

40D is a semi-pro camera, well built, has a superb wheel-button which is makes it really comfortable to use and it’s image quality (especially in ISO 400-1600) outperforms even the newer 50D / 550D because of its great CMOS. I love it. I also use my friend’s D90 a lot which is also a good camera for beginners. Featurewise it’s of course the better choise, but if you don’t want to make HD videos 40D is much better. (Especially for REAL photographers, If it’s just a hobby you better take the Nikon… at least in my opinion.)

Oh, and forget this “oh yea the Nikkor kit lens is much better than the Canon!” because:
1) It’s not.
2) 18-55 is useless most of the time.
3) For a low price you can get a Sigma 17-70 F2,8 which outperforms both.
4) Mostly the image quality (everything except noise) depends on the lens you use. Save some money for a better lens! Primes are the way to go. ;)

KDC Photojournalist May 6, 2011 at 9:26 pm

This is not for the comparison,
this is for those saying that Video is needed by photojournalist

as a photojournalist, I don’t need a video cam.. I use DSLR for photos,
not for videos.. Videos is a nice addition, and I admit it is useful for my part time job. :p

But, in photojournalism, i dont think video is needed. The videos you see from the internet is from the videographers too, or writers with a handy cam.
As a photojournalist, i cannot shoot video while the important event is happening, because my priority is photos.
I don’t see any photojournalist who shoot videos, while shooting pictures too. We just have no time to shoot videos. Even those PJ that publishes their photos to the internet doesn’t shoot videos, I know it because i work with them..

Leave a Comment

{ 3 trackbacks }

Previous post: Rule of Thirds

Next post: Olympus E-520 vs Olympus E-420