CCD sensor vs CMOS

[Guillermo1]

Well….610 is 2 stops better in DR….huge

how about pleasant colors and depth.? I think ccd might be more pleasing? If not,then ccd is not worth thinking about

jay

 

[Brev00]

Not that it makes the D40 any better than it is (or was), but with my newest Nikon's I very frequently crop to 6 mp for bird shots and distant wildlife. I have no fear of a 6mp image.

I only have one computer that will display anything more than a 6 mp image, so why do I need more?

Because cropping (which you say you do frequently) a D40 image will produce less than 6mp images.

And the fact that it only has 3 focus points to use is totally immaterial for me as I only use one on any of my Nikon DSLR's or Z models.

I generally use single point focus but definitely need to move it away from the center a good deal of the time. Are you saying you shoot only with the single focus point locked into the center position? And you only have af-s lenses? The camera will not work with lenses that have focus motors. I don't believe it has the ability to focus using a back button. It has a tiny viewfinder and a low res lcd. In other words, it lacks a number of the modern conveniences that you may need or want.

It's all in what you need or want.

It may take some research to see exactly what one's wants and needs are and whether a camera may have those features.

 

[Bob A L]

Not that it makes the D40 any better than it is (or was), but with my newest Nikon's I very frequently crop to 6 mp for bird shots and distant wildlife. I have no fear of a 6mp image.

I only have one computer that will display anything more than a 6 mp image, so why do I need more?

Because cropping (which you say you do frequently) a D40 image will produce less than 6mp images.

My newest Nikons have more than 6 mp sensors and some of my ccd sensor Nikons have 10mp sensors which can certainly be cropped to 6 mp. I certainly would not crop D40 images to 6 mp, but might well crop them to 3 mp. which is larger than the 1920x1080 monitors used by many common folk. The largest photo hanging in our home today is a 16x20 from a 2.7mp camera.

And the fact that it only has 3 focus points to use is totally immaterial for me as I only use one on any of my Nikon DSLR's or Z models.

I generally use single point focus but definitely need to move it away from the center a good deal of the time. Are you saying you shoot only with the single focus point locked into the center position? And you only have af-s lenses? The camera will not work with lenses that have focus motors. I don't believe it has the ability to focus using a back button. It has a tiny viewfinder and a low res lcd. In other words, it lacks a number of the modern conveniences that you may need or want.

I pretty well understand what works for me and what focusing aids are available for those that need or want them if someone asks. I also understand what types of lenses work full featured on which Nikon cameras.

I have 2 D40's along with 8 other Nikon dslr's and 1 mirrorless Nikon, so have availble Nikon ILC's from a D1h through Z mirrorless to use on a daily basis. Not quite sure where your response was meant to lead. Typically, my photos are shared via internet, on my personal computers at 267 ppi or prints, typically 4x6" and 8x10" so my D40's with two extra focus points and 6mp sensor are perfectly satisfactory. And will continue to crop my 21 and 24mp images to 6mp and less for my typical uses.

It's all in what you need or want.

I agree with that.

It may take some research to see exactly what one's wants and needs are and whether a camera may have those features.

 

[Iain G Foulds]

… And with brilliant upscaling software like Topaz Gigapixel, the earlier sensors can more than compete for reasonable resolution with modern cameras.

 

[AWG_Pics]

The camera will not work with lenses that have focus motors.

I think you meant to say AF only works on lenses that have focus motors. At least my D40 autofocuses with any F-mount lens that has a focus motor. Including non-Nikon lenses.

 

[Bob A L]

You are 100% correct. I keep considering downloading the trial version and playing with some 6mp images. Years ago, I did this myself with photoshop with my 2.7mp D1h Nikon. And from what I have seen this new software runs circles around what I could accomplish way back when.

 

[Brev00]

Not that it makes the D40 any better than it is (or was), but with my newest Nikon's I very frequently crop to 6 mp for bird shots and distant wildlife. I have no fear of a 6mp image.

I only have one computer that will display anything more than a 6 mp image, so why do I need more?

Because cropping (which you say you do frequently) a D40 image will produce less than 6mp images.

My newest Nikons have more than 6 mp sensors and some of my ccd sensor Nikons have 10mp sensors which can certainly be cropped to 6 mp. I certainly would not crop D40 images to 6 mp,

This is my confusion. The D40 has a 6 mp sensor, so, you can't crop and have a 6mp image. And, you say that you do like to crop. You can upscale as Iain mentioned but I have my doubts about how aberration free ai upscaling software is.

but might well crop them to 3 mp. which is larger than the 1920x1080 monitors used by many common folk. The largest photo hanging in our home today is a 16x20 from a 2.7mp camera.

So, yes, you are living well within the capacity of your gear. As I said above, I was just confused about how much you will crop a D40 image. If to the same extent as a 24mp image cropped to 6mp, then you would be left with less than 3mp with a D40 image.

And the fact that it only has 3 focus points to use is totally immaterial for me as I only use one on any of my Nikon DSLR's or Z models.

I see that you are actually using a D40. I misunderstood. Thought it was more of a hypothetical. Also, you said you shoot with just the one focus point but I wasn't sure if that meant you have it always in the middle of the frame. That is a way we defiinitely differ. Going from my 12 focus point D90 to my 51 focus point D7100 was a revelation. Have more on my D500 but still want even more!

 

[Bob A L]

For me, it's one focus point, always in the center of the frame. I have and regularly use Nikon ILC's that have from 3 to 209 available focus points and they are all used with single focus point always in the center of the frame. Old fashioned maybe but it works for me without problems and has ever since my first camera with focusing available through the viewfinder, probably somewhere in the late 1950's or early 1960's. If it ain't broke don't go try fixing it.

 

[Peter in Canberra]

To revisit the olden days I bought a D60 for $60 from KEH a few years ago, just to experience again what it's like shooting with early-days DSLRs. I have SOOC images I took with a D60 that look freakin' awesome...but so does a lot of my newer CMOS images

From 2009, first SOOC which I lived with for years after these were shot then the same images years later tweaked in LR4. All probably shot on Vivid

(I'd searched through a ton of old hard drives, years ago, to find these...and there are many more D40/D60 from the same era) which gave me the idea to get another D60. I've even taken my newest D60 to Utah again, just for fun while on a work trip

I'd probably process these different now, in LR6, but what I discovered is how little dynamic range the 60/40 had. Shooting in raw almost didn't give any more leeway in shadows and highlights. Colors were always great, though

I see you are using the 'era appropriate' 18-135mm lens too

I had one for a while and sold it in favour of a 18-105 for the VR.

thoughts on the 18-135 ?

 

[toomanycanons]

To revisit the olden days I bought a D60 for $60 from KEH a few years ago, just to experience again what it's like shooting with early-days DSLRs. I have SOOC images I took with a D60 that look freakin' awesome...but so does a lot of my newer CMOS images

From 2009, first SOOC which I lived with for years after these were shot then the same images years later tweaked in LR4. All probably shot on Vivid

(I'd searched through a ton of old hard drives, years ago, to find these...and there are many more D40/D60 from the same era) which gave me the idea to get another D60. I've even taken my newest D60 to Utah again, just for fun while on a work trip

I'd probably process these different now, in LR6, but what I discovered is how little dynamic range the 60/40 had. Shooting in raw almost didn't give any more leeway in shadows and highlights. Colors were always great, though

I see you are using the 'era appropriate' 18-135mm lens too
I had one for a while and sold it in favour of a 18-105 for the VR.
thoughts on the 18-135 ?

That was back when I didn't really know about keeping my shutter speed up to avoid blurry shots so I'd concluded that it was the lens' fault. Then I did get a 18-105 with VR and that solved that so I concluded the 18-105 VR was a "better" lens. Live and learn

But you can't pixel peep a 6 or 10 mp camera's images to check for the sharpness of a lens so I really never knew if the 18-135 was sharp. I never pixel peeped till I got a D5200

The 18-135 I had also had the annoying habit of becoming "disconnected" from my camera which I finally discovered required grabbing the lens and just turning it 1/16 of a turn to reconnect it

All that said, my 18-140 is the best of the three, sharper than the 18-105 at 105 and no bad habits

 

[toomanycanons]

For me, it's one focus point, always in the center of the frame. I have and regularly use Nikon ILC's that have from 3 to 209 available focus points and they are all used with single focus point always in the center of the frame. Old fashioned maybe but it works for me without problems and has ever since my first camera with focusing available through the viewfinder, probably somewhere in the late 1950's or early 1960's. If it ain't broke don't go try fixing it.

I usually shoot Single AF point in the center as well. Maybe Group in certain situations. In that regard, the three AF points on my D60 doesn't bother me but as I've said, my D60 usually resides in a camera drawer waiting for me to be in a snapshot mood

 

[Peter in Canberra]

And the fact that it only has 3 focus points to use is totally immaterial for me as I only use one on any of my Nikon DSLR's or Z models.

I see that you are actually using a D40. I misunderstood. Thought it was more of a hypothetical. Also, you said you shoot with just the one focus point but I wasn't sure if that meant you have it always in the middle of the frame. That is a way we defiinitely differ. Going from my 12 focus point D90 to my 51 focus point D7100 was a revelation. Have more on my D500 but still want even more!

focus (with centre point) and recompose?

 

[Peter in Canberra]

To revisit the olden days I bought a D60 for $60 from KEH a few years ago, just to experience again what it's like shooting with early-days DSLRs. I have SOOC images I took with a D60 that look freakin' awesome...but so does a lot of my newer CMOS images

From 2009, first SOOC which I lived with for years after these were shot then the same images years later tweaked in LR4. All probably shot on Vivid

(I'd searched through a ton of old hard drives, years ago, to find these...and there are many more D40/D60 from the same era) which gave me the idea to get another D60. I've even taken my newest D60 to Utah again, just for fun while on a work trip

I'd probably process these different now, in LR6, but what I discovered is how little dynamic range the 60/40 had. Shooting in raw almost didn't give any more leeway in shadows and highlights. Colors were always great, though

I see you are using the 'era appropriate' 18-135mm lens too
I had one for a while and sold it in favour of a 18-105 for the VR.
thoughts on the 18-135 ?

That was back when I didn't really know about keeping my shutter speed up to avoid blurry shots so I'd concluded that it was the lens' fault. Then I did get a 18-105 with VR and that solved that so I concluded the 18-105 VR was a "better" lens. Live and learn

But you can't pixel peep a 6 or 10 mp camera's images to check for the sharpness of a lens so I really never knew if the 18-135 was sharp. I never pixel peeped till I got a D5200

The 18-135 I had also had the annoying habit of becoming "disconnected" from my camera which I finally discovered required grabbing the lens and just turning it 1/16 of a turn to reconnect it

All that said, my 18-140 is the best of the three, sharper than the 18-105 at 105 and no bad habits

My 18-135 used to do that too. Thanks for your view on the three. I wonder about getting an 18-140 from time to time ...
I should break out my second D60 more ...