Very nice topics being raised...
Also looking for Camera...
Am considering either a 400D or D40. Whichever is cheaper.
Keep chatting guys. Very informative.
The D40 is way cheaper.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Have you ever ordered a product online and received a fake knock-off?
Nikon D40 or Samsung Pro815
- Thread starter snapshot
- Start date
The D40 is way cheaper.
mercurial
MyBB Legend
I'd much rather go for the Canon 400D.
iDenTiTy
Expert Member
^^
Debate please.
Why?
Debate please.
Why?
iDenTiTy
Expert Member
Isnt that being a bit simplistic? Technologies change - new sensors, new firmware, updated image processing, better feature sets . . . its not all about bragging rights its also about advancement.
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
No, it's not simplistic. Neither the Nikon D40 nor the Pentax K100D Super are simply old models. Both of them were introduced fairly recently as entry level models, and they do benefit from technological advancement. The D40 was introduced well after the D200, D2X and D80. The K100D Super came about almost a year after the K10D and it inherited a number of its features. These two are about as mature and modern as it gets in the sub 10MP market. If I was simply recommending older cameras, I would have included the Canon 300D/350D. Well, I might have, if I had any experience shooting with them, but I don't.
Who's talking about the K100D Super? I certainly wasnt.
As for progress has Nikon not made any since the D40?
I think they're both adequate. I considered the 350D as a backup while my 400D was being repaired but it lacked several features - most importantly the sensor cleaning - that I was used to.
Last edited:
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
No I did, as I always do when the topic of entry-level/budget DSLRs come up.
I'm sure they have but there aren't any other Nikon bodies in this price range available. My point was the D40 and K100DS are in a different class to older 6MP DSLRs (300D et al) since they have benefited from the technology in the newer, higher-end cameras from their manufacturers.
But if you want me to draw a comparison, they both out-feature the 400D and 1000D on several grounds, I've made my case for IQ vs pixel count (and said "if this important to you" enough times), so I think it's fair to say price is really the only differentiator.
We're reading different reviews in that case.
Care to make it again? Does one preclude the other. Is Canon sacrificing image quality for pixel count? Did Nikon do the same with the 10.1mp D40X?
Last edited:
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
Does one preclude the other. Is Canon sacrificing image quality for pixel count? Did Nikon do the same with the 10.1mp D40X?
I never said that. I said, and I'll stick by it, fewer pixels doesn't mean worse image quality, and vice versa. Sure, it means a little less detail, but that's all.
iDenTiTy
Expert Member
My dad always told me:
"The racket does doesn't make the player, the player makes the racket"
Was Bjorn Borg great because of his racket? I think not.
So I suppose the same could be said of cameras.
An expert-level camera in an amateur's hands, will still only produce an average picture...
So it boils down to how you use it then...
Am I right?
"The racket does doesn't make the player, the player makes the racket"
Was Bjorn Borg great because of his racket? I think not.
So I suppose the same could be said of cameras.
An expert-level camera in an amateur's hands, will still only produce an average picture...
So it boils down to how you use it then...
Am I right?