This was my thinking when I bought my D40 a little over a year ago. I still feel that I'm not getting everything out of my D40 that it has to offer and until I feel like I am, I'm going to wait...besides, there are a growing number of AF-S lenses out there. I get compliments by the handfuls by using this combo.
Hmmm indeed. Which of these two do you prefer?
I realize it's very hard to quantify, but the combination of my real-world usage of both cameras, and the tests that have been done both lead me to that number. The D90 has about one extra stop of real usable dynamic range. In photographic terms, a stop is a doubling of the light, thus the 2x number. Sorry if it seems a little misleading to phrase it that way.
To me, on my monitor, the top image is cleaner than the bottom one.Hmmm indeed. Which of these two do you prefer?
One of them (I'm not telling which) is the D40 at ISO 1600, the other
is the D90 at ISO 3200. These are crops from the Imaging Resource
files. On your monitor, these are effectively crops from approx
13x19 inch prints. In my eyes, for all real-world uses, these are
the same image, but exposed slightly differently.
At LEAST. Probably closer to 3 to 4 times. Good luck getting something like this on your D40:
Well.......I think I was the first in this thread to mention outgrowing their DSLR.
Please, do argue your case against any of my numbers. In fact, I've just rebutted three "arguments" above. And those were the only three that were even up for discussion. That is, are you going to attempt to argue that the D90 doesn't have twice as many control dials or three times as many focus points?
If you are such a camera nihilist, I would ask, why are you bothering to post in a camera-comparison thread? I'm a firm believer in the mentality of "the camera doesn't take the picture, the photographer does," BUT the differences I listed are all REAL. Any careful buyer would/should be happy to have them spelled out.
--To me, on my monitor, the top image is cleaner than the bottom one.Hmmm indeed. Which of these two do you prefer?
One of them (I'm not telling which) is the D40 at ISO 1600, the other
is the D90 at ISO 3200. These are crops from the Imaging Resource
files. On your monitor, these are effectively crops from approx
13x19 inch prints. In my eyes, for all real-world uses, these are
the same image, but exposed slightly differently.
Fine, I'll fess up. But I will say, I thought my point was more effective with the mystery intact. The top one (the one you guys say is better) is the D90 at ISO 3200. Please do remember that the exposure level is noticeably different between the two images. If we print the D90 image brighter, to match the D40, I really think the difference you're seeing will wash away.--To me, on my monitor, the top image is cleaner than the bottom one.Hmmm indeed. Which of these two do you prefer?
One of them (I'm not telling which) is the D40 at ISO 1600, the other
is the D90 at ISO 3200. These are crops from the Imaging Resource
files. On your monitor, these are effectively crops from approx
13x19 inch prints. In my eyes, for all real-world uses, these are
the same image, but exposed slightly differently.
I agree - the top one on my monitor is a lot cleaner. Which one is
which?
--At LEAST. Probably closer to 3 to 4 times. Good luck getting
something like this on your D40:
--
http://www.benseese.com
Don't be sorry -- if you're going to indirectly insult me, be honest about it. But in fact, I'm pretty sure my skills are just fine -- I was shooting an HDR timelapse project that day, thus the absurd shutter count. Changing out the battery mid-shoot would've been possible, but very undesirable.
At LEAST. Probably closer to 3 to 4 times. Good luck getting
something like this on your D40:
--
http://www.benseese.com
