DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Which camera should i get, XTI or D40x?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 39, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/21/2007 06:25:46 PM · #1
I'm sure this has been asked before, and i did search on the forum, but decided to ask anyway. Please be nice :)

So i've decided to invest in a DSLR camera and been doing quite a bit of research on the matter. Since it is a significant investment, i've decided to get your opinion's on the matter before finally taking the leap and buying one. I've described my dilemma on my blog when I initially asked for opinions on the matter. I've included a link to the article if anyone would like to respond to some of the comments already on the article or you may reply here.

//yusuf.asgerally.com/?p=138

Thanks.
 11/21/2007 06:27:05 PM · #2
The D40x

Compare cameras

Nikon features over the Cannon:
ISO rating Auto, 100 - 1600 (plus 3200 with boost)
Flash guide no. 17 m (55.7 ft) m
Exposure compensation -5 to +5 EV in 1/3 EV steps

Message edited by author 2007-11-21 18:32:18.
 11/21/2007 06:35:14 PM · #3
Flip a coin. Either way you won't be dissappointed. Also, compact flash cards are cheap anymore.
 11/21/2007 06:52:44 PM · #4
Well they're both great cameras. Standard advice here is to try them out and see which you feel more comfortable with.

I opted for the Canon (ableit the 350) due to the vast choice of lenses - unless I'm mistaken the D40x, like the D40, is restricted to Nikkor lenses if you want autofocus.
 11/21/2007 06:59:36 PM · #5
Originally posted by figaro:
Well they're both great cameras. Standard advice here is to try them out and see which you feel more comfortable with.

I opted for the Canon (ableit the 350) due to the vast choice of lenses - unless I'm mistaken the D40x, like the D40, is restricted to Nikkor lenses if you want autofocus.


you are correct. the lens has to be an AF-S for it to work with the auto focus. infact right now I do have have that lens but a 50mm AF, it fits and works but just does not auto focus. everything else reads and talks to the camera.
11/21/2007 07:40:36 PM · #6
canon glass > nikkor

in other words... lens selection and quality is better
 11/21/2007 09:49:44 PM · #7
Originally posted by Jib:
canon glass > nikkor

in other words... lens selection and quality is better

I really don't think that is fair. can you show me facts that canon glass is better than nikkor?
11/21/2007 10:05:24 PM · #8
Originally posted by Jib:
canon glass > nikkor

in other words... lens selection and quality is better

...Says the Canon user. Is this a blanket statement that covers everything? Because the kit lens with your camera is pretty bad.

To the OP, it depends, of course, on which glass one is referring to. There are a few lenses that can be compared apples to apples, but you won't find any definitive proof out there that says one brand is better than the other, and a lot of the glass made by one company doesn't have a direct equivalent (such as the 24-70 f/2.8, which Nikon didn't make until very recently).

One of the main reasons I originally went with Nikon was because I heard that Nikon glass was in fact better than Canon's. I now know this isn't necessarily the case.
 11/21/2007 10:09:17 PM · #9
Originally posted by figaro:
Well they're both great cameras. Standard advice here is to try them out and see which you feel more comfortable with.

I opted for the Canon (ableit the 350) due to the vast choice of lenses - unless I'm mistaken the D40x, like the D40, is restricted to Nikkor lenses if you want autofocus.

It's not that the D40/D40x won't take anything not made by Nikkor, but rather that the lens needs to be AF-S (as someone already mentioned).

There's plenty of glass that will function fully on the D40/D40x. And typically, it's glass that would be more appetizing to someone who would use an entry-level dSLR (i.e. zoom lenses).
 11/21/2007 10:31:24 PM · #10
It's best to see how they feel in your hands. Personally, I would probably opt for the Canon.
 11/21/2007 11:08:56 PM · #11
I was in your similar situation, went for the Canon, mostly because i have quite a few photographer friends who own the same one, and are satisfied with it. Its worked wonderfully for me.
 11/21/2007 11:10:15 PM · #12
Originally posted by Jib:
canon glass > nikkor

I'm so pleased you've condensed 50 years of optical science into three words.
11/24/2007 11:43:41 AM · #13
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by Jib:
canon glass > nikkor

I'm so pleased you've condensed 50 years of optical science into three words.


:)
 11/24/2007 11:52:14 AM · #14
Nikon.... They sponsor the NY Mets!
 11/24/2007 11:53:51 AM · #15
ive got the xti, and honestly, im tired of it. mostly cause its size, slowness(not only fps) for sports and i miss the important pic. i cant really take a one shot pop, cause the lag is pretty noticable. you have to give yourself atleast a half second buffer when pressing the shutter for it to actually take the pic(this is very difficult when you have to anticipate the action in fast pace games). if you just shooting plants or somthing that doesnt move, obviously this wont play any part in your decision. id look at the older 20d. you loose the 2mp, but none of the quality. plus 5fps is pretty handy when you need it. if you really want the huge screen to view the pic in great detail, then go for the xti, but i dont see the reason in having such a big screen, cause i never even use the thing. sides, the pics always come out dif when you slap them on the computer. but anyways, you can find the body for cheaper than the xti, and the grip is a whole world better. itll make your xti feel like a p.o.s. dont take my advise, go check out the 30d at bestbuy, i know they have both the xti, and 30d for display and handling, plus the 30d its the same thing as the 20d just a bigger screen, and twice the price. your basically using the same camera youd buy. all in all, id sudjust you makeing the jump to a nicer camera body and saving you $ for a lil nicer camera rather than losing it on the resale.
 11/24/2007 11:56:40 AM · #16
Originally posted by AbraCadabRa13:
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by Jib:
canon glass > nikkor

I'm so pleased you've condensed 50 years of optical science into three words.


:)


im not putting down canon glass, but if you ever have taken a look at fred miranda, i think its clear that EVERY nikon lens gets high 8's and solid 9's. if you check out the canons, youll find a pluthera of 6's, 7's and everything above and below.
 11/24/2007 11:57:27 AM · #17
I must say that the
cannon glass> Nikkor statement really ammuses me.

I went to the Art Institute. All of those who were still using Nikon were using it because the quality of glass on nikon lenses is better. Those whom had cannon said that the only reason they would ever consider going back to nikon is because of lens quality. The school itself went cannon only, though after a couple of years of that, they considered going back to nikon because of lens quality.

I will give cannon a great edge over nikon for camera bodies. Nikon lenses though, are top of the line
 11/24/2007 12:03:45 PM · #18
Originally posted by Pug-H:
It's best to see how they feel in your hands. Personally, I would probably opt for the Canon.


I went to circuit city yesterday and played around with both camera's. I think the canon definitely feels a little better in my hands.

What was weird was that the demo D40x was powered so you could take pictures with the default 18-55 kit lens and get a better feel for the camera. The canon was not :(

I noticed that in the Nikon, when you looked through the viewfinder it displayed all setting info which is kinda nice. I don't know if the canon does this. Can anyone verify this?

Talking about lenses, I will probably be using the standard lenses that comes with the lens kit for a while before I invest more and get additional glass. I seem to be reading that the Nikon kit lens is better than the canon kit lens. Is this true?
 11/24/2007 12:16:08 PM · #19
Originally posted by AbraCadabRa13:
I noticed that in the Nikon, when you looked through the viewfinder it displayed all setting info which is kinda nice. I don't know if the canon does this. Can anyone verify this?


It should pretty much all be there. Look here.

Originally posted by AbraCadabRa13:
Talking about lenses, I will probably be using the standard lenses that comes with the lens kit for a while before I invest more and get additional glass. I seem to be reading that the Nikon kit lens is better than the canon kit lens. Is this true?


The current Canon 18-55 IS kit lens is every bit the equal to the Nikon kit lens, but the older Canon 18-55 kit lenses were not.

ETA: See this thread.
Edited to correct first link

Message edited by author 2007-11-24 12:29:24.
 11/24/2007 12:52:29 PM · #20
Originally posted by jaimeDp:
ive got the xti, and honestly, im tired of it. mostly cause its size, slowness(not only fps) for sports and i miss the important pic. i cant really take a one shot pop, cause the lag is pretty noticable. you have to give yourself atleast a half second buffer when pressing the shutter for it to actually take the pic(this is very difficult when you have to anticipate the action in fast pace games). if you just shooting plants or somthing that doesnt move, obviously this wont play any part in your decision. id look at the older 20d. you loose the 2mp, but none of the quality. plus 5fps is pretty handy when you need it. if you really want the huge screen to view the pic in great detail, then go for the xti, but i dont see the reason in having such a big screen, cause i never even use the thing. sides, the pics always come out dif when you slap them on the computer. but anyways, you can find the body for cheaper than the xti, and the grip is a whole world better. itll make your xti feel like a p.o.s. dont take my advise, go check out the 30d at bestbuy, i know they have both the xti, and 30d for display and handling, plus the 30d its the same thing as the 20d just a bigger screen, and twice the price. your basically using the same camera youd buy. all in all, id sudjust you makeing the jump to a nicer camera body and saving you $ for a lil nicer camera rather than losing it on the resale.


You have definitely got me interested. I checked out ebay and they have a few decent deals. A little pricey, but as you said is it worth the little extra for much better performance and better resale value down the line.

Talking about value for money, should i wait off a little? With the 40D out, will the 20D become a little cheaper in a month or two?
 11/24/2007 12:53:14 PM · #21
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by AbraCadabRa13:
I noticed that in the Nikon, when you looked through the viewfinder it displayed all setting info which is kinda nice. I don't know if the canon does this. Can anyone verify this?


It should pretty much all be there. Look here.

Originally posted by AbraCadabRa13:
Talking about lenses, I will probably be using the standard lenses that comes with the lens kit for a while before I invest more and get additional glass. I seem to be reading that the Nikon kit lens is better than the canon kit lens. Is this true?


The current Canon 18-55 IS kit lens is every bit the equal to the Nikon kit lens, but the older Canon 18-55 kit lenses were not.

ETA: See this thread.
Edited to correct first link


Thanks. I do remember reading this review but i had forgotten about the status bar on the canon.
11/24/2007 01:03:06 PM · #22
Personally, I don't care if it's a Canon or a Nikon... I've been both ways and add Minolta into what I've owned. I even wear Nikon glass on my face daily :-)

The XTi is an ok camera. The dust shaker isn't very effective and the size throws a lot of people off. I prefer the XT.

The D40, also an ok camera. BUT, and a big BUT in my eyes is AF issue with all but AF-S lenses. There is some darn good Nikon (and third party) glass that you aren't going to be able to use. Yes, you could manual focus, but the D40x viewfinder is not that big and doesn't have a focus screen suitable for lots of MF work. I would definitely recommend a D70 or D70s as a better alternative.

---------

A few other points:
Canon glass and accessories tend to be more readily available second-hand.
Nikon's iTTL flash system is way more advanced than Canon's eTTL2.
Canon and Nikon glass are both very good. Nikon optics are sought after in fields other than photography, such as hunting scopes.
 11/24/2007 01:05:01 PM · #23
Originally posted by AbraCadabRa13:

Talking about value for money, should i wait off a little? With the 40D out, will the 20D become a little cheaper in a month or two?


Maybe after Christmas you will se a small price drop, but I wouldn't expect anything significant.
 11/24/2007 01:45:06 PM · #24
ya, i doubt it will drop much more, its pretty much at a pinicle low for now. but as far as getting a 40d, its up to you. its a improvment over the 30d by far. but its the double price difference that will be the test. actually almost triple(500$x2.6)haha, well i am actually looking to sell my xti to get the 20d, and get a 10-22. an amazing lens. but if you want a good basic wider angle lens, try the 17-40usm. its a really really good lens, which is among the most popular. and plus its really cheap(629) on b&h. that would have you set. if your looking at more of a zoom lens, check out the 70-200, its like 550 and one of the clearest zoom teles. not as good as the fixed 300,400...., but its definatly quite stunning. check out the pics that ppl have taken with it on dpc. if you want to get prime lens, id go for a basic 50m 1.4 (100$)which is a must have, and an 85 1.8(314$). id just personally go with the 17-40 f/4 and a 50mm prime cause its gnarly fast. if you want a longer lens id try the 70-200 f/4. you must go and try the cameras before you buy them, this is like the most important of them all. youll know as soon as you try which one youll like.
 11/24/2007 02:14:21 PM · #25
A friend of mine bought a D40x. He quickly did a "dead pixel" test on the sensor, and counted something like more than 15 dead pixels. After some research online, he found out that Nikon's threshold of dead pixels was around that many (or more), and that Canon's threshold was significantly less.

Does that mean Nikon is saying to the consumers, "we allow less quality on the market than Canon alows."?

Message edited by author 2007-11-24 14:14:47.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 12:32:54 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 12:32:54 PM EDT.