Tech, Tips, and Tutorials.
Reviews, News, and Rants.

Why I didn't go for the Nikon D40x

No image? Click here to attempt opening it in a new window The Nikon D40x was a camera that was released four months after the original D40. It was built so that those that felt that they need more than 6 MP will have the camera they want. It is priced to be in direct competition with Canon's EOS 400D. It wasn't intended to be a replacement model, just a “big brother” version of the D40.
Note: This isn't an article written to justify my purchase. Read the post's title. It's an article about why I didn't buy the D40x instead.

Besides a few internal differences, the D40x is identical to the D40. It uses the exact same body, the same screen, the same menus and interface, and all the things which made the D40 such a great camera. In fact the only external difference is the badge.

Below are the most significant differences between the two: - 10 megapixel CCD sensor (D40 has 6 MP)
- 3fps (D40 shoots at 2.5fps)
- Lowest ISO of 100 (D40's lowest is ISO 200)
- Lm100 (€235 or £160) more expensive
- Flash x-sync: The D40 is one of the few dSLRs that can sync the flash right up to 1/500. The D40x, D80 and higher can only sync up to 1/200.
- Slightly noisier shutter. Above 1/100 the D40 uses a silent electronic shutter, while the D40x uses a mechanical shutter right till 1/4000. This is the reason for the D40's higher x-sync speed.

One of the reasons that I like the Nikon D40 is because it has a relatively low pixel count. More megapixels mean worse image quality, given the same sensor size and tech. Anyway, 4 more MP isn't that big a deal. While 10 MP sounds like almost double 6 MP, in fact it isn't. It is only a 22% increase. In order to double the resolution of 6 MP, you would need a 24 MP camera.

Having more MP is a good idea if you plan on making huge prints and viewing them with your nose touching the print. 6 MP is more than enough to print beautifully up to A3 size, and even A2 with some work. Who prints that big anyway? Not the average D40(x) user anyway.

Shooting at 3 fps compared to 2.5 fps is a non-issue. 0.5fps will not make a big difference. Get yourself a 9/11fps Nikon D3 if you're serious about continuous shooting(RRP Lm5,000).

Going down to ISO 100 would have been very important if it was a compact camera (they suck at anything above ISO 100), but the D40's ISO performance is so good, you won't miss ISO 100.

All in all, the D40x just wasn't worth the Lm100 premium for me.

Possibly Related Articles (automatically generated)


Albertas Agejevas said...

You forgot to mention the difference in the size of files produced by the camera The RAW files produced by the D40 weigh 5-7 MB, and D40x's are somewhere in the 9-12 MB range. It means less free disk space and longer download and processing times. Anyway, the limiting factor for the resolution tends to be the cheap lens, not the sensor.

Post a Comment